Search Results

Free and open source licenses like the MIT license you quote are copyright licenses: they permit you to do something that, by the default under copyright law, you wouldn't usually be allowed to do. Fo …

The parenthetical (and not binary) from the license summary you quote is derived from the end of the second paragraph of the Boost license (emphasis mine): The copyright notices in the Software and this … entire statement, including the above license grant... must be included in all copies of the Software... unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code …

A few of them include: they have a personal need for software that performs some specific functionality they think proprietary software is unethical and want to develop a replacement for some specific … It's easy to imagine free and open source software is developed in pursuit of an idealistic vision to create the perfect software, or to rid the world, once and for all, of proprietary software. …

If the software has deliberate defects or malicious "features" (e.g., malware) then we need not rely on warranties to pursue legal action: in such a case, the author has surely violated a number of civil …

This is the widely-used Apache License 2.0, which allows you to redistribute the work, whether modified or unmodified, for any purpose, as long as you preserve the original author's copyright notices. …

I'll go ahead and allow you to use and redistribute that software, with or without modifications, as long as you follow these requirements: 1. … Bear in mind that proprietary or copyleft software may also include BSD license notices if they make use of BSD-licensed code. …

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they …

The key is not code within the software system; it is a configuration value provided to the system. (I have a related answer for the question Open Source Projects with Encryption Keys.) …

I want to make sure in no way am I liable for any issues, and that my code cannot simply be copied and claimed as someone else's. You want a license that includes a disclaimer of liability (often …

You should not include keys in your open source project. You should include a file location where your code expects a key, and the user (or an included utility) creates or copies their own unique key …

This is categorically fine under the MIT license (as long as you follow basic attribution and license-preservation requirements), since the MIT license allows you to distribute the work (and modified …

If you were given software under some Foo License, you may copy, distribute, and modify the software under the terms of the Foo License. … If the distributor of that software stops giving out new copies under the Foo License, that does not change the fact that you did receive a copy of it under the Foo License. …

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 …

With the exception of branding and configuration values, this open source base is identical to the built software product we offer." …

The GPL FAQ addresses a similar case (emphasis mine): Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a voting machine? No. … Companies distributing devices that include software under GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the object code …