huxingyi

Thanks, that's good!

Thanks, to conclude from your detailed answer: I can still license the code other than CGAL to MIT, but license the whole project to GPL, and in the future if I removed CGAL, I can license the whole project back to MIT. And the plugin API is not related with CGAL at all, so I can let the user choose whatever the license.

Thanks, so that means the user have to open source their script also.

Thanks, I mainly use the CGAL/Polygon_mesh_processing to do mesh boolean. I saw some thread say CGAL commercial license cost $12K, it's not affordable for a side project yet.

Thanks, > 1. MIT can easily be re-licensed as GPL. You can keep a branch of it right before the introduction of CGAL, so if someone really wanted to, they could replace it with something else themselves.

It's too late, I introduced CGAL very early.

> 2. This is where it gets tricky. Yes, though you'll need the permission of all your contributors to the GPL version of your project, and replace all the GPL code ith similar functioning code. You should avoid just line-by-line rewriting of the GPL code though, you'll need to have a unique implementation.

So, I guess it's a Yes. If I removed CGAL in the future.

> 3. Again, tricky, but MIT would probably be OK, because MIT is compatible with GPL, if it's within the GPL'd project.

Basically, if I have to license my project on GPL because of CGAL, I would like the scripts wrote by user could license on whatever user like. But I am not sure if is possible.

The actual effort of writing one line of code in the specific language doesn’t mention in the article. Write one line of rust is extremely difficult than one line of Python, or even C++.