Timeline for GPLv3 frontend and BSD backend, do I have to disclose the backend source?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2015 at 7:09 | comment | added | Greendrake | I'd say the key point is this: can the backend be used without the GPLv3 frontend? If it can, then it can't be "infected" with GPLv3 from the frontend. Otherwise one could go nuts and argue that the backend's underlying stuff (e.g. whatever frameworks, scripting language interpreters and operating system used) should also be provided to the frontend users under GPLv3 on the basis that the frontend won't be useful without them :). | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 16:52 | comment | added | Craig | I agree, but the opinion that matters is the copyright holder, they are the only entity that can take legal action. Of course, after they take legal action the court's opinion is the one that matters. | |
| Jun 6, 2015 at 11:00 | comment | added | Ixrec | Regarding Sencha's claim that "the combination of front end and back end constitutes the application", it's worth pointing out that the FSF (makers of the GPL) does not believe there is a definitive answer on this issue yet. | |
| Jun 5, 2015 at 20:28 | history | answered | Craig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |