Programming

17405 readers

113 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Question about GPL-3 and deleting files from a Github project (beehaw.org)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This might be an odd question to ask, but I want to be sure to understand it correctly. When I clone a project in Github that is licensed under GPL-3.0 license, am I allowed to delete bunch of files that I no longer need?

Someone took an old BCX-BASIC program and converted it into C with some additional work to make it compile in Linux, and a Python GUI. The original Basic program is still included in the project. I want to delete everything besides the .c program, license and an include file. I want to add my own Makefile and just create the commandline executable with gcc. And I might change the name of the application too and either create my own GUI or maybe (if its possible) to integrate the C program in Rust or Zig in example, but have to explore this more.

But the files that were included there, the legacy BASIC program and some other files, are licensed under GPL-3 too. Am I allowed to just delete those files from the project?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

for the "or later" clause I'm assuming that there is clarification in the license to state that the license must be validated by the GNU organization or states that it must be a later/newer "GNU" based license

this is my assumption, I would have to reread (once I'm back home) the license to confirm for sure

The main difference between GPL-2.0 and 3.0 (if I remember correctly) is closure/addressing the Tivoization loophole that exists in GPL-2.0

Licensing is still confusing, even after more than a decade.

totally fair, unless you're a lawyer or someone with OCD like me, no person would want to spend time reading all of the licensing terms/clauses

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And I appreciate the help in understanding the subject. I am actually someone who reads licenses and sometimes dig into terms to get an understanding of very specific subjects, but got a bit too comfortable lately and need to catch up. I plan on reading the GPLv3 too, but this needs a bit time and effort. So until then I'll ask around.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

no worries🤗