4

I am writing a non-commercial and academic GPL v3 program and want to know if it is ok to load an unspecified/unnamed closed-source license like this one:

Licence

BASS is free for non-commercial use. If you are a non-commercial entity (eg. an individual) and you are not making any money from your product (through sales/advertising/etc), then you can use BASS in it for free. If you wish to use BASS in commercial products, then please also see the next section.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, BASS IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE AUTHORS SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OF BASS. YOU USE BASS ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Usage of BASS indicates that you agree to the above conditions.

All trademarks and other registered names contained in the BASS package are the property of their respective owners.

please, click here for the full README.

Improve this question
3
  • That's not an open-source license...
    – Stephen Kitt
    Aug 17, 2016 at 16:03
  • Sorry about that, should I delete the question?
    – cpicanco
    Aug 17, 2016 at 16:11
  • 2
    not at all. You question is in the context of the GPL
    – Philippe Ombredanne
    Aug 17, 2016 at 17:05

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

The FSF provides two great FAQs on precisely this subject, here and here. In a nutshell, you can do so as the copyright holder of the GPL work, but users will not be able to use the GPL's rights to its fullest extent.

In your case, I would recommend a license with a weaker copyleft, which does not require that recipients license the whole work under its terms. Depending on your needs, the LGPL, CeCILL, or MPL may be appropriate.

Improve this answer
1
  • I think I will rewrite the code with another library, GPL v3 compatible, instead!
    – cpicanco
    Aug 18, 2016 at 18:43
1

I am writing a non-commercial and academic GPL v3 program and want to know if it is ok to load an unspecified/unnamed closed-source license like this one

This is perfectly OK as on the face of it you seem to be a non-commercial person per this license.

I can use this with my GPL code alright anyway I want.... BUT can I redistribute this with anyone else?

I would likely not be able to redistribute that proprietary, non-commercial library and my GPL code being unable to run without it may (big may?) be violating the GPL if redistributed. Commercial usage is one of the freedoms that cannot be prohibited per the GPL.

So I would use it but I would likely refrain from sharing or redistributing my own GPL code. And since this would then be my own private usage code, the license would not matter much, as I would be the only user.

The big may may need more clarification though.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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