| ▲ | duskdozer 2 hours ago | |
It doesn't make sense, because GPL means only GPL comes out, not only GPL can go in: >Many of the most common free-software licenses, especially the permissive licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the three-clause and two-clause forms, though not the original four-clause form), MPL 2.0, and LGPL, are GPL-compatible. That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (but the other license would not so apply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_comp... A model that contains no GPL code makes sense so that people using non-GPL licenses don't violate it. | ||