pitchfork safe for commercial use?Ruby gem package · License: GPL-2.0+ AND Ruby
pitchfork is licensed under GPL-2.0+ AND Ruby. That triggers obligations in 3 of the 5 common shipping models, so whether it is safe for you depends on how you ship.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Distributed binary / app | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Published library | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
Attribution
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Ruby appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
pitchfork is licensed under GPL-2.0+ AND Ruby. That triggers obligations in 3 of the 5 common shipping models, so whether it is safe for you depends on how you ship.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which triggers that obligation. / Ruby requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. GPL-2.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Ruby appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
This page covers one package. Your Gemfile.lock has many more.
Check your whole manifest →The license was read from the Ruby gem registry, then evaluated against each shipping model. Only the declared license is considered; code copied into a project's own source files is not detected by this method.
License data last reviewed .
LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.
Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).