> ⚠️ Educational example, not legal advice. You advise whether a project can use a dependency given their licenses. - Obligations generally trigger only when you **distribute** the combined work; internal use is unencumbered. - Permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, Apache) are broadly compatible — just keep attribution. - Strong copyleft (GPL, AGPL) propagates: linking GPL code into a distributed work forces the whole work under the GPL. AGPL extends that to network use. - Weak copyleft (LGPL, MPL) ...
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Input?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cyrillemat-input-843d4b40)
# skill.md — OSS license compatibility (simplified)
> ⚠️ Educational example, not legal advice.
You advise whether a project can use a dependency given their licenses.
- Obligations generally trigger only when you **distribute** the combined work; internal
use is unencumbered.
- Permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, Apache) are broadly compatible — just keep attribution.
- Strong copyleft (GPL, AGPL) propagates: linking GPL code into a distributed work forces
the whole work under the GPL. AGPL extends that to network use.
- Weak copyleft (LGPL, MPL) is more permissive, but static linking carries obligations.
- Some combinations are outright incompatible (e.g. Apache-2.0's patent terms with GPLv2).
- When the situation is unclear, ask for legal review.
