-1

Many developers, students, etc. put their code on GitHub without any links to authors of used components and licenses. I tried find a new job and yesterday HR ask me create Rest API with django + drf and publish it on GitHub. I read that if repository doesn't have any license it means that it is 'forbidden all'. Does it mean that if the repository exists without any license that is NO distribution? On my portfolio I have all links to authors and base licenses. But if I need quickly create a project and demonstrate it to hirer I don't have time to create links to the authors or licenses, maybe after demonstration I can create it or simply drop or hide project. Is it violation too if it only short time demo?

Am I violating the terms of the licenses (like Apache 2.0, MIT, GPL) when I publish my project that uses dependencies like Django, React or Spring Boot on GitHub without any license or copyrights and links to authors of used components?

8
  • 6
    Which bit of "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." isn't clear to you? – Philip Kendall Jun 9 at 12:48
  • So people who don't use links to authors and violate the terms of the base licenses? And if I don't publish code or use private repository I must add link to authors of components and links to their license? Or even the app is not ready and it saw only developer's team in this case I must add links and copyrights too? I dont copy paste code I use dependencies only. – grsm Jun 9 at 13:13
  • For example, (this is only my private opinion and assumption) I found repository without any license or links to MIT and it have code, that used React components also without links to React project. Is is violate MIT terms? Link repo just as example, and this is not my own github.com/kontur-web-courses/space-y I think this is repo for a student's hometask. – grsm Jun 9 at 13:48
  • 4
    Links are not required at all. Keeping the copyright notice and adhering to the license terms is. None of the licenses requires to place links in any form to any URL. – planetmaker Jun 9 at 17:16
  • 1
    Again: which bit of "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." isn't clear to you? Linking is not including a copy. – Philip Kendall Jun 9 at 18:25
5

Am I violating the terms of the licenses (like Apache 2.0, MIT, GPL) when I publish my project that uses dependencies like Django, React or Spring Boot on GitHub without any license or copyrights and links to authors of used components?

If you copy code under such a license into your repository, or if you create a deployable package that physically contains such code, then you must include a copy of the relevant license and copyright texts.

That is in addition to complying with other requirements the license may impose upon you (like using GPL-compatible licenses for all parts of the code if any part is under the GPL itself).

If you just refer to the dependencies in your code and use a package manager to retrieve them from wherever, then you are not required to have the corresponding license and copyright texts in your repository itself. And there is no open-source license that requires you to have links to the authors or sites of your dependencies.

3
  • Tnank you for great answer! So, for example, if I use only 'import' ReactDOM from 'react dependency' and ReactDOM.render and do not have source code of React in my repo than I do NOT need to have copyright notice about MIT and React project, isn't it? – grsm Jun 11 at 15:37
  • That is correct, until you start distributing React together with your software. – Bart van Ingen Schenau Jun 11 at 17:09
  • And thank you again. – grsm Jun 11 at 17:23
2

If you use third party software inside your own programs, and it is liscensed (which it most likely will be if it is available to the general public) the requirements for use will be different from one app to another. For example most proprietary software will not require you to do much of anything, providing that you paid for that license beforehand.

Opensource licenses are different. There are a few different types of license available. Different versions may have different requirements from users. Three things, however will always be required. First of all, you need to have a copy of the license. Just like a driver's license is proof that you are allowed to drive, a software user license proves that you are allowed to use that software.

The first of these requirements sort of implies the second. That is, you are required to hold up anything you agree to on that license. This is where the "mention the author in your work thing comes in." Note that this requirement isnt technically a requirement of open source licensing. It isnt written somewhere in the ten commandments of opensource (or in any law) that you must do anything printed on a license to use the app. However, remember, having a valid license is required by law. Therefore, Developers only need to state "this license is only valid if these demands are met." It isn't that much different than proprietary. Paid purchase is more or less just another demand prerequisite to license validation.

Now the third rule (requirement) is not only important, it is the very heart of open-source. It states that you must include the open-source. Believe it or not, this is where open-source gets it's name! (and water is indeed wet.)

This just means that, no matter how you decide to distribute your application, be it via package manager or on CD-ROM via snail mail (this methodI don't recommend XD), the source code has to be somehow publicly available. If you distribute a java app as a jar. You need to include either a copy of the source code. Note that this rule is required, explicitly by the original developers of the open-source apps that you are using. However, since you are now using that code, and since it is still open-source, the requirement falls on you as well. Just ask android.

There are a few other requirements, laid out by the Open-Source Initiative, but at the end of the day, they are just a standards group. When I refer to open-source, I am speaking of the free and often community-built, but licensed software.

1
  • Thank you for answer! – grsm Jun 11 at 15:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.