24

I posted an answer to the announcement post that pretty much sums up why part of this - the exception - is a bad idea: You're essentially creating a crayon license. If you modify the terms of an existing license, you create what is known as a crayon license. Those are a problem - see "How can a “crayon” license be a problem?" for the reasons why. ...


19

You can use all the text, and most of the images, under some conditions, and those conditions include proper attribution. Wikipedias text is under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license (CC BY-SA 3.0). If you abide by those conditions - that is, credit the writers, and publish the text (or whatever adaptations you've made to the text) ...


16

If you have not copied the code directly, this sort of thing is usually OK, and exempt from copyright laws. Specifically, mathematical formulae, ideas, inventions, recipes and facts cannot be protected by copyright. So just the knowledge that a format is handled in a particular way is not a copyright issue. Clever shortcuts and time-saving algorithms are not ...


15

If you are the copyright holder, you are allowed to license however you wish. An example of a license you can use is the Common Public Attribution License, which contains this clause (paraphrased): […] the Original Developer may include […] a requirement that each time an Executable and Source Code or a Larger Work is launched or initially run […] a ...


14

TL;DR I believe that GNU GPLv3 does not require attribution, [...] Am I correct in my understanding of GPLv3? No, the GPL-3.0 always requires attribution composed at the minimum of a copyright statement, a notice and the GPL license text. Attribution examples are provided at the bottom of the license text. But what is attribution? I consider that ...


13

In 4(c) of CC BY-SA 3.0 it is defined how attribution has to be provided. For the work’s URL, it says: […] (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; […] So if a work’s page no longer ...


12

The BSD license(s) and the MIT X11 license are some of the simplest and most permissive Open Source / Free Software licenses. With the exception of the original (and officially obsolete) 4-clause BSD license, they are also GPL-compatible (if that is something you care about). Both the MIT X11 license and the 3-clause BSD licenses require attribution. The ...


12

Copyright for old works expire at some point. In most countries that happens 70 years after authors death. Can I take a book with expired copyright (say Dickens Oliver Twist), [...] and release the result under an open license (let's say CC-BY-SA)? According to the Berne convention, works may pass into the public domain after life of author + 70 years (i.e....


10

You're correct in your last paragraph at least: the || symbol will mean nothing to people who have no programming knowledge. If you know that the only people visiting your project will be programmers, that's OK, but there are still less ambiguous ways to represent it. In fact, the simplest way may be to simply say it: This project is dual-licensed under ...


10

Flaticon requires you to attribute each author: In order to use an icon you must attribute it to it's [sic] author, so we will be able to continue creating new graphic resources every day. Icon made by [author link] from www.flaticon.com E.g.: Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com From a legal perspective: The icons are under ...


10

This is a detailed analysis, but note that I am not a lawyer, cannot give you reliable advice, and am only looking at the terms of the AGPL, not at relevant law in your jurisdiction. Companies that publish a “community edition” under the AGPL routinely interpret that license more restrictively than sensible. This is understandable since they are protecting ...


9

Yes you can and no you don't have to. You're the owner. Since you own all the rights, you can of course allow them to use without attribution. You shouldn't have to write anything. If someone complains to this other dev that they're not attributing, the other dev can just say they've got permission, and point the complainant back to you. You can just ...


9

Warning: It seems that this isn’t possible, because the provision (that only "the last license applied" has to be followed) was introduced with CC BY-SA 4.0, so CC BY-SA 3.0 doesn’t allow it. Please see Trevor’s answer. If you adapt¹ content licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, you can (additionally) license your contribution under GPLv3 (but not the other way ...


9

Open source allows you to create derivative works. That means you can create a derivative work which reduces the functionality to those parts you consider essential. But remember that you need to comply with the license terms of the library, even when you only take selected parts of it. Almost all open source licenses have an attribution clause, including ...


9

While not exactly a spot-on match, Creative Commons licenses effectively give this option. In CC-BY 4.0, for example, section 3(a)(3) states that attribution must be removed upon request: If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the [attribution] information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. This mechanism ...


8

No Let's go through section 3(a) of the license bit by bit. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any ...


8

The MIT license is a very permissive license, and allows re-licensing. The license doesn't require you at all to to keep the attribution line in any of the files, but it's kind of a dick move to remove it straight away. Keeping it there also makes it easier for re-users to find out who the copyright belongs to - though for a license as permissive as the MIT ...


8

Can I license the resulting library under apache 2.0 or do I have to keep it MIT? The MIT license is a permissive license which allows relicensing under other license terms as long as the original MIT copyright message is retained. Is there any problem with rebranding it as new product? No, the MIT license puts no further conditions besides the ...


7

This is a better question than I first thought because, whilst there's lots of guides and FAQs on this subject, they are disorganised, duplicating, and don't cover mobile apps specifically. I'll try to gather all the relevant information here. What you need to attribute Unless you are using CC0, pretty much all CC licenses require attribution. The best ...


7

This is a jagged seam between the concepts that underpin copyright law, versus the reality of information. Copyright law cares very much about the provenance of the work: what prior works does this work derive from? The concept only makes sense in the context of a clear traceable lineage from one work to another. As you hint, though, that concept does not ...


7

I think it matters, and everyone should be listed, and I think the reasons are almost entirely moral. Limiting the list to the core team fails to acknowledge major contributors. Leaving contributors out because their contributions are small or infrequent is rude. After all, a contributor list is a form of 'Thank you' and perhaps offers a little ...


7

But what about the libraries that x-library uses? Is it my job to give attribution to it or is it x-library's job? If you redistribute libraries with you app --whether or not they are your direct, first level deps or deps of deps at full depth-- you are responsible to ensure that you comply with each licenses, all the way. It is always your job even if and ...


6

Almost all open source licenses have a warranty disclaimer. The attribution here is a problem, and - despite you say you want this - I'm not sure you would actually want this. Why not? It creates a legal hazard. Your company logo and name is a trademark. When someone adapts the work, they and they must retain the logo and company name, they open themselves ...


6

If you can spare words and it doesn't have to be language neutral, for example You may use this work under the terms of either CC-BY-SA, or (at your option) CC-BY-NC or Your choice of CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC The former is similar to what the GNU project uses in their GPL versioning to allow using the current or any later versions (http://www.gnu.org/...


6

When the copyright of a certain work expires, it is released into the public domain. Hence, anybody can use it. There's no restrictions to it. For example, I can take one of Beethoven's music compositions, change it up, and then make it mine. With copyright. Essentially, you can take any content that is in the public domain, and you can do anything that you ...


6

It depends upon the license, and you can find out by reading the license. Many, such as Apache-2.0 require the license to accompany binary distributions, but some certified as Open Source don't. Some (for example zlib, libpng) ask politely for credit. libjpeg requires attribution, but in order to get certified as Open Source they promised not to enforce ...


6

[obvious disclaimer - I am not a lawyer] A common practice I've seen is to add an additional file, e.g. NOTICE.txt with references to other projects being used. For example, take a look at Apache Commons Lang (yes, I know it doesn't use the MIT license, it's just a really simple example for this practice, which holds for various licenses). It has a NOTICE....


6

Congusbongus's answer provides excellent information on what I believe to be the removal and inclusion of a project's logo. However, I want to focus more on another part: changing the logo. This dives a little more into copyright and trademark laws, the latter of which falls out of reign for most popular licenses: they come with no mention, or generally an ...


6

Your question is: How do I attribute authors if I don't know their real names? I think this has wider applicability to just this case, so I'll attempt to answer with future visitors in mind. I'm also intentionally avoiding the issue of licensing but just focusing on author attribution. The first thing I would do in this case - although not necessarily ...


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