So? The zlib license is even less restrictive than the GPL.velmarin wrote:Sure, sure, it's not like that.syzygy wrote:If you are still asking about whether you can distribute an executable that contains GPL'd code without making available the full source code of that binary, then just read section 6 of the GPLv3:velmarin wrote:That's not true, moreover, put something and immediately the opposite, they have gone to the literary world even.
I have not yet read anything that forbids not to do so, it is suggested, it is advised, ect.Couldn't be much clearer, and this is certainly enforceable.6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: (...)
Pretty much all overwhelmed,
The zlib license has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software licence,[1] and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license.[2] It is compatible with the GNU General Public License.[1]
The license does not require source code to be made available if distributing binary code.[/code]
This means that you can incorporate zlib code into a GPL program and release the thing under the GPL.
The same applies to my TB access code. It can be included in closed-source engines but also in Stockfish. Someone distributing Stockfish must also make available the SF source code including the TB code.