Repository navigation
Replies: 1 comment
|
I checked the published crates and the repo. Your reading of the dependency chain is right, and I couldn't find anything granting an exception. What's there
So, as published, the 1.5.2 browser WASM contains GPL-3.0-only code. The MIT label on Who can resolve it Only the copyright holders can. Either the microjson author offers it under a permissive license, or Pagefind swaps the dependency (it's a small JSON parser used for filters). An issue on Pagefind that references #421 is probably the quickest way to get @bglw's position on record, and a maintainer statement is what your review needs anyway. If you need to ship before that GPL-3.0 §6(d) covers serving object code from a "designated place" such as a website. You offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source, which can live on a different server (including a third party's) as long as there are clear directions next to the object code. Since your users publish the unmodified upstream build, the corresponding source is the Pagefind Not legal advice, as you said — worth running past whoever does your license review. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hello, and thank you for maintaining Pagefind.
We are developing HuPongo, a commercial, closed-source GUI application for Hugo.
Our desktop application downloads the official, unmodified Pagefind Extended 1.5.2 binary and runs it as a separate process using --service. We do not link Pagefind into our application's executable.
Our users then publish the generated static website, including Pagefind's JavaScript and WebAssembly search assets.
We would like to clarify the licensing requirements for those browser-side assets. We noticed that:
Could you please clarify:
We are asking specifically about distributing the browser search program, separately from our GUI application's source code and the website authors' own content.
We may be misunderstanding the licensing metadata and would appreciate clarification.
Thank you!
All reactions