31

Generally, you do not have the right to re-license the work of anyone - you have to keep at least the obligations from the license under which you receive the work. So let's compare that: CC0 basically is a short version of "do whatever you want, no conditions whatsoever". MIT and Apache are both permissive licenses. Their gist basically is "...


25

In my opinion, it is not fine to relicense content under either of those licences to CC0. CC0 includes a pretty strong waiver of moral rights, which are not mentioned in either the MIT or Apache licences. In jurisdictions which recognise moral rights and permit them to be disclaimed, you have thus exercised a right which was not given to you by the ...


14

The relevant clause from Apache2 is s3: Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a ... patent license ... If You institute patent litigation ... then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate... For a work by a single author, so licensed, that clause doesn't protect ...


11

You write that you "recently learned that one of the apps on my smartphone is using the Apache 2.0 license", but then you write that the app says that its "source code is published under the terms of the 'Apache 2.0 License'". Apache2 is a non-copyleft free licence; it doesn't require that redistribution takes place under Apache2. So it'...


7

From what you've written, I'm not entirely clear about the problem. I'm going to assume that you're the sole rightsholder in {data,domain,app,device}.gradle (forgive the regexp) and that data.gradle, though written entirely by you, is linked to a third-party AGPLv3 library. Thus {domain,app,device}.gradle are unconstrained with respect to licence, but data....


6

Under current legal precedent in the United States, LibreOffice et al. did not commit copyright infringement. Look to Lotus v. Borland for the U.S. precedent allowing duplication of interfaces. The code used to create each computer program is copyrightable and may not be duplicated without permission, but the functional components of the rendered interface ...


6

The Apache Software Foundation is a non-profit foundation. It has no owners, similar to how natural persons have no owners. Instead, the foundation is controlled by a board that is elected by the foundation's members. A company could effectively take over a foundation by getting its employees elected into the board, but they would have to convince the ...


5

Am I violating the terms of the licenses (like Apache 2.0, MIT, GPL) when I publish my project that uses dependencies like Django, React or Spring Boot on GitHub without any license or copyrights and links to authors of used components? If you copy code under such a license into your repository, or if you create a deployable package that physically contains ...


5

What is not clear for me, is it mandatory to have the resulting product also under a permissive open source license? No, this resembles a copyleft license (in contrast to a permissive license) which allows redistribution of derivatives only under the same license. If it is not mandatory, how it differs from "do whatever you want", I mean except, ...


4

There's two fundamentally different takes on open source licenses: a) the permissive ones like MIT, Apache etc which - roughly speaking - don't care what happens to their sources as long as the credits are maintained and communicated. b) And there's the more strictly open source licenses, the copy-left licenses, which want to make sure that any derivative ...


4

You must keep the BSD license notice intact for as long as your project is derivative of BSD-licensed software, for example because it still contains some BSD-licensed parts. Whether a project is still derivative after a rewrite is somewhat unclear as discussed in other questions here. But if you aren't really really sure that you've entirely replaced all ...


4

You will be fine. Each of these images will have their own license, however as long as you meet the conditions (i.e. for CC: proper attribution, non-commercial use if -nc, etc.) it's not an issue. but you download them one by one, not all as a whole. If you're providing a separate download (i.e. you are splitting images that were previously distributed ...


4

Yes, the MIT and Apache licenses are compatible with each other and you can use dependencies under one of them in a project under the other. The MIT and Apache license are both permissive licenses and the requirements each imposes upon you are not forbidden by the other license.


4

You have taken some code licensed to you under Apache2 and made a derivative work implementing an API. You intend to run a single instance of this work on your own server so that others can interact with it. You wish to know what your licence obligations are. Basically, as I read it, you have nearly none. All the obligations of Apache2, including ...


4

The question is basically whether these partially copy-pasted classes are considered modifications of the original code. When you copy code (written by someone else) to a new file, then you are effectively copying your license obligations along with it. It does not matter that the original code also still exists somewhere, possibly even in the same project.


4

Based on section 4 of the license, you need to: keep original copyright comments mark the files as changed (eg. modification copyright XXX XXXX) keep or reproduce the text of the Apache 2 license keep the NOTICE file if it exists It would make sense to leave in the readme that you have created a port. Edit: Clarified that the license text, not the LICENSE ...


4

You should add e.g. "(c) 2021 Joe R. User" to the file headers (where you find such comments) to mark that you've made some changes, and claim your rights to them formally. Check the licenses. They don't ask to mark any changes you do, so you don't have to do so. But think of your gentle reader, a few years down the road and half a world distant (...


3

Does the fact that I sign and distribute runtime & SDK used to write the component oblige me to change the component's license to MIT / Apache2? No, software under Apache 2 or MIT/Expat/X11 licenses may be used within software under virtually any license. These are "permissive" licenses which means they don't impose many requirements (other ...


3

You propose to write software to be offered to others as SaaS on a commercial (and, presumably, proprietary) basis. This software will not be entirely created de novo; you wish to use pre-existing freely-licensed software in the creation of your offering, and you have some questions. What other types of licenses can I use in addition? All free software ...


3

We have to separate the license terms from the license itself, and from other notice requirements. The license terms are about what the recipient is allowed to do with the covered work. The license says “this work is covered by those license terms”. There might be other notices. Copyright notices are usually not legally necessary, but provide nice ...


3

Since the images themselves are seperate works, you can do that.


3

The Class path Exception (CPE) used by OpenJDK essentially states "As long as you use the classes covered by the CPE unmodified and only load them via the standard class-path mechanism, we don't care what license your code uses. It is all considered compatible." As the class-path mechanism is the default for loading Java classes, as long as you don'...


3

Let's say that someone uses your project (licensed under your custom license) in an MIT licensed application. Since the MIT license explicitly allows the software to be distributed closed source, your custom license would be ineffective and would not make sense. If you do not want your library to be used in proprietary software, then the best choice would be ...


3

In a nutshell, the Apache license allows you to modify the source code as long as you document your changes. You could view squashing the commits as such a change, and document it by stating something like "This project is forked from XYZ, with commit history .. squashed".


3

Regardless of technologies you use for distribution, you must comply with the license. The Apache license requires that you include a copy the license text + NOTICE file with your software. The appropriate mechanism for this could be the JAR's META-INF system, but it might be more appropriate to (additionally) put copies into your software's documentation or ...


3

P.S. Maybe I shouldn't worry about these licenses concerns in the open-source world at all... Not only should you take license concerns seriously, you are usually legally required to. Do not brush them off. What you are doing sounds like redistribution of OpenCV (in object form) under section 4 of the Apache License. This requires you to "give any ...


3

What is not clear for me, is it mandatory to have the resulting product also under a permissive open source license? Generally, no. You are required to distribute the licence text, but there is no requirement comparable to eg GPLv3's s5c, "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy&...


3

Many open source licenses require reasonable attribution, but no Open Source / Free Software license will require prominent/promotional attribution. Let's talk about why that makes sense, and what the common Open Source options are. Requiring prominent attribution is typically a bad idea. Software has a life cycle. It is written, used, reused, discarded, ...


2

According to GPLv3's third-draft rationale document: The GPLv3 compatibility of the Apache license patent termination clause was accomplished in Draft 3 by the second specific example of an impermissible further restriction given in the third paragraph of section 10. Looking at GPLv3, this specific example reads you may not initiate litigation (including ...


2

If you're shipping the dependencies, then you must fulfil their license terms, such as including the license notices with your software. How to do this properly depends on the context of your software. E.g. the license notices might be included in documentation files like Python does, or a software with a GUI might show them in an info panel like most web ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible