JarbasAI

IANAL but my question is exactly that, Piper depends on GPL so it can't be licensed as MIT, having a GPL dependency (non-optional) means you must keep the license

well, i would not consider this speculation as this kinda is the entire point of GPL, as a developer it is you responsibility to comply with the license, users aren't...

I'm not gonna rehash the old debate of permissive vs copyleft licenses, but any search around those keywords will show this is not some boggeyman i'm making up... complying in...

> I haven't investigated the exact situation, but I expect that the following are true: > > * Piper is _not_ a derivative of espeak-ng: it's only dynamically linked >...

> I understand that lots of people have differing opinions on this (which is only of the big issues with GPL), but I believe the most widely held is that...

> Then I've got more good news, as this is the case with the next version of Piper (in a side branch)! Raw text phonemes will be supported, and espeak-ng...

I keep seeing dynamic linking mentioned here, can someone explain to me why LGPL was made if dynamic linking is allowed under regular GPL? what is the point of LGPL...

thanks for the explanation! > many people hold the view that GPL also allows dynamic linking without creating a derived work, but not static linking. this was the missing piece...

Like the patent troll boogeyman cost Mycroft it's business, any ill intentioned third party can bring the GPL boogeyman to a FOSS project they don't like (because it's direct competition...

where is that link? in the main openvoiceos.org website?