Search Results

The GPLv3 says To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. However, public display does not make a copy of the work, and I strongly expect …

If the code is entirely yours, your choice to license your own work under the GPL does not limit your own rights in how you may distribute/modify your own code . By releasing under the GPL, you have g …

You are certainly free to reverse engineer and recompile the GPL-licensed binary you receive, whether or not you received source alongside it. You are likewise free to make modifications to such decom …

Your title says "monetize" but your question makes it clear you ask more precisely about copyleft obligations and source disclosure (which aren't concerns that are strictly aligned with monetization). …

Setting aside the question of when exactly a transfer of ownership of a laptop occurs and setting aside the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2, not GPLv3: Performing a transfer of …

They consider the implementation process as copyrighted original creative work. I don't know how faithfully you've reported their exact words/meaning, but a process is not copyrightable. All copyrig …

The GPL FAQ indicates this is legally valid but not advised for practical reasons: A clear statement [about GPL licensing] in the program's README file is legally sufficient as long as that accompani …

Does that mean that when you specify GPLv3 or any later version that anybody who receives the code may add a later version that may not be necessarily compliant with the current version? Ye …

A wheel is either source code or object code. Any form of any work is one or the other, according to the GPL's disjunction: The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for ma …

If you do not depend on any GPL license grants to distribute your software (i.e., you are the sole copyright holder and/or you make use of no one else's GPL'd code), you may achieve this by not offeri …

I don't know MacOS development, but I assume there must exist some way of running a non-notarized executable, if only for development purposes. (Otherwise, you'd have to submit your binary for notariz …

This is not a legal concern, but one of project policy. What this FAQ item says is essentially: if you submit contributions to the GNU project, they will not use them unless you first assign copyright …

Short overview: The GPL-licensed code you modified is a web page template, and the code you want to distribute as a web site is the output of rendering that template with some of your own text and im …

Argument #2 has credibility, depending on many factors. The other two arguments you present in your question are not correct. Dealing with arguments #1 and #3 first: In the poster's own words, the GPL …

Your first statement is ultimately false. Anyone who receives a copy of GPL'd software must have the right to redistribute it, so we can be sure that second half of statement #1 is false. However, the …