mirh

A GPL binary is GPL code that uses zlib code. And I see nothing wrong with different part of the code using different licenses (as long as they are compatible...

> The real problem here is GPL. You can't use that unless your project is GPL as well Again, not true, regardless of fair use. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesCompatMean You probably can't just...

> I am not using any code from that GitHub repository. Putting aside that "no license" would technically be even less flexible, see https://github.com/aqrit/ddwrapper/issues/1. > Furthermore, the license explicitly says:...

No, I'm saying that you are focusing on a non-issue. AFAIK there's no "legal relationship" between individual pieces of source code (even if they specifically make references to other parts...

Yes, but this is the deal. "Use" happens, duh, at ***use*** time. When you run the thing (or to be even more specific, when you distribute the work). Even if...

It's wrong.. because what? The specific commenter has read them too, you know. Putting even aside credentialism, they also make a pretty compelling example with ffmpeg. If your extensive interpretation...

> ffmpeg allows you to link against GPL code, as optional dependency. ***Yes***. But the optionality of the dependency doesn't remove from the fact that the feature/code/whatever that exploits the...

You should also open another issue about that lighting bug, since it's kinda within the aims of dxwrapper to fix too.

Yes, I also had something like that on my desktop (can't remember now the exact circumstances) AFAICT it just depends on the kind of load you put on your hardware....

So.. how is it going by now? Everything as it should in the end?