Follow-up Comment #15, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #14 comment #14:] > Found here : https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c that glibc is :
Why do you keep looking for what third parties say about the license of Glibc (especially those who say it in ambiguous terms like "BSD license" <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html>)? > Bu[t] we can say that GNU Make is released under GNU GPLv3 license This isn't quite correct; please check https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html > and is obviously, like lots of other GNU's software, using the -and is so license compatible with- glibc. It looks like you misunderstand what it means for packages to have compatible licenses. In particular, it isn't the same that for the first package to be able to legally use the second one. > Copyright lists contributors realesing these dependencies under the licenses I just listed. I don't think I really understand this. > Do I have to list third part licenses in LICENSE file of Ladspa tool kit? Probably I don't understand this, either. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16044> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/