Timeline for What license options do I have for licensing ported source code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 26, 2022 at 20:11 | comment | added | preferred_anon | @EricLanglois I was also confused on this point. I've asked a question: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12974/… | |
May 6, 2021 at 22:11 | comment | added | Eric Langlois | Assuming that the port is a derived work, does the MIT license actually require that the license text be included in derived works? Does "copies or substantial portions" include derived works that contain no literal text from the original? | |
Sep 20, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Abhi Beckert | @vonbrand it's not clear that you would be infringing on copyright if you re-implement someone's product in a different language. If you are not infringing copyright, then you are not required to comply with the license. You would be infringing on patents, but maybe not copyright. And I don't think the Ruby on Rails project has any patents. | |
Sep 20, 2015 at 18:25 | comment | added | vonbrand | @AbhiBeckert, the intent of MIT is that you can do what you want, as long as the notice is preserved. I don't see how a court court disagree/overrule that, your work on top of the base is yours alone. On the other hand, running Ruby on top of a JVM pulls (at least some aspects of) the JVM into the equation, and there it gets murky. | |
Sep 14, 2015 at 0:56 | comment | added | Abhi Beckert | For what it's worth, this "conservative" position is an extremely tentative one. Copyright law is not clear at all on this topic and a lawyer/judge can only give you their opinion. If you ask a different one, you'll get a different opinion. Taking it to court would be like flipping a coin. | |
Sep 13, 2015 at 21:11 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
Sep 13, 2015 at 21:11 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
Sep 13, 2015 at 21:11 | |||||
Sep 13, 2015 at 14:40 | history | answered | bmargulies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |