I would like to use images available in a GitHub repository that is marked with GPL3 license. If I proper reference it, can I use and modify it without author's explicit consent?
If so, is it still valid for MIT and GPL2 licenses?
-
1Why do you think you couldn't?– curiousdanniiCommented May 31, 2017 at 22:45
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I am not a lawyer, but unless stated elsewhere in the repository, it seems reasonable to assume the image is GPLv3 if the repository, as a whole, is marked as GPLv3. If I were you, I might attempt to do some investigation (e.g. look through commit history) to the origin of the image to double check that it is indeed GPLv3.
If I proper reference it, can I use and modify it without author's explicit consent?
Correct, you do not need to get the author's consent to use a GPLv3 image. However, you should include any relevant copyright information from the source of the image (look for copyright in the git repository).
If so, is it still valid for MIT and GPL2 licenses?
No, it is not valid to include a GPLv3 image in a MIT or GPLv2 licensed project. GPLv3 is not compatible with either of those licenses. However, you could do the reverse. You could use a "GPLv2 or any later version" licensed or MIT licensed image in a GPLv3 project.
Open source license compatibility chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#/media/File:Floss-license-slide-image.png
Make sure to comply with all of the requirements (not just the copyright requirement) of the GPLv3 if you choose to use that license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-(gpl-3)
-
Good catch @apsillers. The "New Compatible Licenses" section of this GNU site, gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html, confirms your understanding of GPLv2 only being compatible with version 3 if it says "or any later version". Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I will update my answer. Commented May 31, 2017 at 20:37