New answers tagged apache-2.0
2
Your code either is derivative of GPLv3 software, or it is not. If it is derivative you can only publish your code under the GPLv3 as well, if it isn't derivative you can do whatever you want.
It is not entirely clear whether your software would be derivative of the Emacs Orgmode implementation.
Implementing the same file format does not render your ...
2
Many licenses consist of two parts: the license terms, and the license notice where the copyright holders actually grant the license. The Apache license suggests a specific text for this notice.
Here, the upstream software contains only the license terms and metadata about the license, but not the actual notice. This complicates downstream use, but since ...
1
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you ...
4
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of ...
1
A software that includes AGPLv3-licensed components is subject to the AGPLv3 as a whole. But other parts of the software can be under compatible licenses such as the Apache 2.0 license.
So yes, you can combine AGPLv3 and Apache 2.0 libraries, with the resulting software being subject to AGPLv3 as well.
Roughly, AGPLv3-licensed software implies the ...
5
That would be a resounding "no".
The licensing of any data file protected by copyright is completely up to the copyright's author, and he or she may bot may not choose to license these files under some permissive license. The fact that the tool used to download it was licensed under some particular license is completely inconsequential.
9
French courts definitely don't have a problem with licences in foreign languages. Two French courts (a lower court and the court of appeal) have upheld the GPL, which is not written in French. (Yes, translations are available, but the FSF makes clear that they are for unofficial guidance only, and that only the English-language original has legal force.)
...
4
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't find this mistake alarming at all.
In the worst possible case, that such a statement really did license the work to the ASF, the ASF probably wouldn't ever exercise that right anyway.
But that worst case likely isn't true: you don't specify the terms of the CLA, so it's unclear what's allowed and disallowed. Also, no such ...
0
Yes, what you are doing is ok.
First of all, by spawning the AGPL executable as a separate process, the two programs are considered independent works as far as copyright is concerned and their licenses do not affect each other.
But even if your project would be considered a derived work there is no problem. The Apache license is compatible with the AGPL, ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
