Search Results

No, the MPL has a per-file copyleft, so any file that does not include MPL material does not need the notice. You quote: You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code. W …

Thus, no license is necessary, because there is no copyright-protected expression to license to anyone. …

You ask about a case wherein an author writes a novel piece of software (without any components licensed from other authors), and then chooses to share it under a permissive license like MIT/X11 or BSD … I'm this way, we can see a license to modify a binary-only distribution is hardly useless. …

This case was done very carefully, but it does highlight that some action that is disallowed by one version of a GNU license may be allowed in a future version. … The relevant legal mechanism is detailed in section 14 of the GPLv3: If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you …

motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. (17 USC S.101) For code under any FLOSS license … The license(s) governing the compiled form of some source code is whichever license(s) give you permission to do anything with that binary that would normally be an exclusive right of the copyright holder …

The use of this license by some FLOSS project is as roughly as problematic as any other non-FLOSS license. … If that possibility proves true in any particular jurisdiction, then the JSON License would, in effect, be a FLOSS license in that jurisdiction. …

Note that "source available" is not a new term, but has long been used by the OSI and others to indicate the public availability of source code, versus use of a license in compliance with the OSI's definition …

However, if your license is a true FSF-approved free license, then charging based on purpose isn't so much a license violation as it is a nonsensical thing to do. … A license that codifes Freedom 0 is one that does not allow you to legally punish a buyer for not limiting their use to the use they said they purchased the software for. …

A "license" simply means legal permission to do something from a rightsholder. … This is generally allowed by the Apache 2 license, but requires keeping copyright notices and the Apache 2 license text, which I can't be sure has happened here. …

Permission has already been granted when the copyright holder chose to license their work under a BSD license. Suppose you did contact the author for permission, and they wrote back, "Sure! … The BSD license allows redistribution but I do not understand what the steps of the redistribution process are. …

The FSF believes, in the jurisdictions they have considered, that the transfer of GPL-licensed software by an employer to an employee, for the fulfillment of their responsibilities as an agent of the …

Whenever you form and distribute a derivative of a GPL work, you must license that new derivative, as a whole, under the GPL. … Your code, in isolation, can be under the MIT license, but when it is combined and distributed with GPL-licensed code, that combination (probably) forms a derivative work which must be licensed as a whole …

A free/open license is an allowance from the copyright holder that permits you to do that, possibly with some requirements (like preserving license text, among other things). … Therefore, you do not need to rely on the MIT license grant to do this action, so you similarly don't need to comply with any requirements included in the license grant. …

No, this resembles a copyleft license (in contrast to a permissive license) which allows redistribution of derivatives only under the same license. … A permissive license that does not even require attribution or preservation of the license text is sometimes informally called an "ultra-permissive" license (e.g., the WTFPL). …

Looking at the repository in question, I see no mention of the Apache License other than its inclusion as a file. … The README indicates no intent to license any part of the project under this (or any) license, and several of the files positively indicate a refusal to license the work to anyone except paying businesses …