Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?
It's the very act of distribution that contains the problem. If you use a GPL'd work in another work, your distribution of the other work must be GPL'd as well. GPL'd part + non-GPL'd-but-compatible part = GPL'd whole, but the parts still exist on their own under their respective original licenses.
Comments
Confuses me too. Maybe its because they didn't say that the code was also distributed and that they didn't explicitly say that they use a certain library that is under the GPL?
It's the very act of distribution that contains the problem. If you use a GPL'd work in another work, your distribution of the other work must be GPL'd as well. GPL'd part + non-GPL'd-but-compatible part = GPL'd whole, but the parts still exist on their own under their respective original licenses.
See Tomte's sibling comment to yours (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39840391) and my own other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841923).
I see. Thanks!