The point is that the GPL code and MIT code can coexist. Infecting does not mean that the code around has to be GPL itself. Just take Julia as an example. It had various GPL components for a long time but 95% of the code were MIT. By removing the remaining parts (which I actually think has happened with the removal of FFTW) it has kind of “recovered” from the GPL infection.
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is JULIA suitable for the development of proprietary derived-softwares? | 31 | 5876 | December 29, 2017 | |
| Package licenses: Contemplations and considerations | 59 | 2390 | July 18, 2025 | |
| How are the intellectual property rights of Julia package developers protected? | 30 | 2040 | March 16, 2024 | |
| How does licensing work for packages that wrap other-licensed binaries? | 16 | 1460 | September 29, 2023 | |
| Julia's business model | 102 | 9285 | November 10, 2021 |