Search Results

The GPLv3 allows the distribution of a GPL work without the normal full freedoms, in the narrow case that the distribution is done explicitly for the recipient to make modifications. … Does your case qualify as distribution? This FAQ item certainly presents the unambiguous opinion that off-site distribution to a contractor (or any non-employee) constitutes distribution. …

Note that the license still says you may... not Share[] Adapted Material Insofar as your isolated part is Adapted Material of the original, it is forbidden to share. If your isolated part is not …

Yes, that is distribution. It is not widespread distribution, but it is distribution. … Your distribution is directed to some set of people; it is to those people your distribution obligations apply. …

AMI is clearly willing, in general, to give out the source code, but they failed to mention it within the distribution itself. … of an offer within their distribution. …

GPL-licensed code, then the GPL requires you to share the source code of everything that is part of that GPL-licensed work. ...if I sell a service as a docker image through AWS, would this be considered distribution … If there is ever a point at which a GPL-licensed binary file loads into the user's local computer memory, then distribution has taken place, and you have an obligation to provide corresponding source code …

The GPL does not define "distribution" but mentions it as a subclass of "propagation" (which is itself a subclass of "conveyance"): To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission … Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. …

The central question, then is whether threatening non-renewal of a support contract, based upon distribution of the GPL-licensed program, constitutes a "restriction" on distribution. …

In other words: the GPL imposes copyleft obligations whenever the transfer of a new copy occurs from one legal person to another legal person, but the question of what does or does not count as distribution … Whether the natural persons to whom you give the software will receive the software as a natural person (causing copyleft distribution) or as an agent of your persona ficta (not causing copyleft distribution …

Here is what I can say with absolute certainty: you must obey the terms of the GPL for the GPL library you are distributing (and for any other GPL code in your VM, e.g., any GPL-licensed GNU or Linux …

As far as I can tell, Godot is licensed under the MIT license which only requires you to preserve and reproduce a copyright notice and simple license terms. You do not need to share any of your source …

The GPL requires that whenever you do choose to distribute your software (which may or may not ever happen), that distribution must happen under the terms of the GPL. … Adding non-disclosure requirements to the terms of the distribution is a violation of entity A's GPL obligations. …

This is likely going to come down to what constitutes "possession" of the object code in your jurisdiction. The GPL FAQ addresses a similar case (emphasis mine): Does GPLv3 require that voters be abl …

What if the license limits the redistribution (only allow distribution of modified software, or allow unmodified redistribution only another name) ? … Pull requests create a modified work that is made available to others (at minimum, on the originating branch), so distribution occurs when another person accesses them. …

On the face of it, this certainly seems like an erroneous or abusive DMCA takedown. The copyright holder had already given you rights to modify and distribute the browser extension by their Apache 2.0 …

"Internal" non-distribution conveyance only occurs between agents of the same legal corporation (persona ficta) because it doesn't leave the possession of the corporate person. …