
Ask HN: Commercially using a GPL fork now marked as non commercial? - eddywebs
Based on the point at GPL&#x27;s website http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;old-licenses&#x2F;gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCModifyGPL I am curious if the fork&#x27;s change in license for non-commercial use still valid.
======
mtmail
If in doubt the website lists "Have a question not answered here? [...] or
contact the Compliance Lab at licensing@fsf.org."

------
eganist
Wait, so what's your specific question?

~~~
eddywebs
My specific question is would it be legal to use the GPL fork now marked as
non commercial in an commercial application ?

~~~
dalke
It depends. (IANAL.) If the fork is no longer licensed under the GPL, and the
distributor is the copyright owner, then the fork is not under the GPL. Use an
older version which is under the GPL.

If the distributor does not hold copyright to the source code, then the
distributor's statement that a given fork is non commercial is meaningless.

If the distributor holds the copyright to some of the code, and not others,
then it's complicated. The Kallithea fork (see
[http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-
kallithea.html](http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-kallithea.html) )
dealt with a similar issue by going to the previous unambiguously GPL'ed
version of the code.

~~~
eddywebs
Thanks for the tip, the non gpl fork is not from the original creators of the
GPL codebase.

~~~
dalke
The fork may still contain some components which are not covered by the GPL.
For example, if a new file was added to the fork by the distributors, then the
distributors control the copyright to that file, and the viral nature of the
GPL does not kick in.

You'll have to be careful to vet each file, with respect to any GPL'ed
version, to see if the differences are covered under an unacceptable license.

