# Does the use of private plugins breach the terms of the GNU GPL v2?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/does-the-use-of-private-plugins-breach-the-terms-of-the-gnu-gpl-v2/62874>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [May 17, 2017, 1:28pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/does-the-use-of-private-plugins-breach-the-terms-of-the-gnu-gpl-v2/62874 "2017-05-17T13:28:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tophee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/tophee/32/73406_2.png) [@tophee](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tophee)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2017, 8:03am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/does-the-use-of-private-plugins-breach-the-terms-of-the-gnu-gpl-v2/62874/20 "2017-06-23T08:03:51Z")

</div>

> [@angus](#):
>
> I have some regrets about posting this topic actually, as it prompts folks to think in overly legalistic fashion.

No, I think it’s a valuable topic and I’m grateful that you are taking the time to explain the legal side of, well, a legal document.

Of course it’s not _only_ a legal document and I didn’t mean to imply that people should talk to the license holder for legal reasons. I just wanted to understand the basic setup of the license, which I thought was binding also for the license holder. Thanks again for explaining!

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/does-the-use-of-private-plugins-breach-the-terms-of-the-gnu-gpl-v2/62874)._