Comment by mytailorisrich
4 years ago
> Unfortunately, Microsoft can’t use the code because (a) it’s GPLv2
One thing to remember is that it is always possible and acceptable to contact the author of a GPL-licensed piece of code to enquire whether they would consider granting you a commercial license.
It may not be worthwhile but if you find exactly what you're looking for and that would take you months to develop yourself then it may very well be.
Not always. GPL-licensed do not have to have a “the author”. There may be hundreds of copyright holders involved (IIRC, ¿Netscape? spent years looking for people that had to agree when it planned to change their license and rewriting parts written by people who didn’t)
Why talk in such generalities? Look at the github repo. There are only three committers to Casey's repo. I'm sure Microsoft could manage to contact them. I'm also quite sure that Microsoft has the money to entice a commercial license if they so wish.
> Look at the github repo. There are only three committers to Casey's repo. I'm sure Microsoft could manage to contact them.
Microsoft's attitude towards the code seems a little odd. [0]
Unfortunately the code is intentionally GPLv2 licensed and we‘ll honor this wish entirely. As such no one at Microsoft will ever look at either of the links.
Given that WSL exists I can't imagine this is a universal policy towards reading GPLv2 code at Microsoft.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10462#issuecomm...
2 replies →
Because the comment I replied to made the generic claim (emphasis added) “One thing to remember is that it is always possible and acceptable to contact the author of a GPL-licensed piece of code”.
Sure, 'the author' may be a number of people collectively, and in that case it's probably not worth bothering.