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, and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license. It is compatible with the GNU General Public License.
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.