Return to Answer

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever build system you are using.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you want to argue with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software with a GPL-compatible license

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever build system you are using.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you want to argue with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software according to the GPL.

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever build system you are using.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you want to argue with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software according to the GPL.

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever build system you are using.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you want to argue with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software with a GPL-compatible license

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you wanna argue that with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software according to the GPL.

Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?

No.

Your software, being designed to use the other libraries, is still a derivative work whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever build system you are using.

If you use a GPL software and do not communicate with it 'at arms length', your work must be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. Something being a derivative work isn't dependent on what's checked into source control, it's dependent on what was contributed to the creative juices in our brains when making something. If you use the GPL software, it was blended with your own creative output.

Along that concept, when someone downloads your source and builds the software, that person is not responsible for creating the derivative work. Building software is not a creative endeavor, it virtually by definition cannot result a derivative work. Instead, the derivative work was already created by you, in the creative authorship of writing the software. The person building it is just applying a mechanical translation of it.

You cannot avoid this responsibility by saying "yeah well I'm not distributing the GPL libraries so I don't have to obey the GPL". I don't need to hand out copies of "Lord of the Rings" to make my stories about Frodo Baggins and Gandalf derivative works. Because your work is a derivative work, you must abide by the rules of the source libraries, which includes the GPL. If you want to argue with the FSF or a judge/jury about that point go ahead but such an argument is off-topic on this site.

The short answer is you must get rid of your GPL dependencies, or license your software according to the GPL.