[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

[Ineiev]

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/