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.
> 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.
Kinda. If it's strictly for personal use and not shared, there's no obligation. If the user is distributing the script in any way, they would be obligated to "share" the changes to the world by having it be free software as well, yes.
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.