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) ...


19

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 ...


18

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 ...


17

No, the third clause of the BSD license does not prevent an academic citation of your work. What it prevents is statements along the lines of Because we have made use of tool X by @wimi, they support the outcome of our research into <controversial topic> or These results were made possible by six years of effort by (Author A), (Author B), (...


16

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 ...


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 ...


10

You are thinking very much about Git, and not at all about the existing MIT license. You can just copy Jack's code. You do have explicit permission – the MIT license under which you received Jack's code. This license only has a single condition: that you keep Jack's copyright + license notice. If you want to preserve Jack's Git history you'll have to do ...


9

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 ...


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 in ...


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

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 ...


8

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 ...


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 ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


7

Yes, that's exactly how you should do it. If, in the future, you happen to have written out any code by the original contributor, then you could (if you wish), remove their name - but you'd have to be sure none of their code remains of course :)


7

Listing copyright for each individual may imply that these holders hold copyright over all of the code, whereas really they should only hold copyright over the portions they have created. I would recommend instead using the lines Portions Copyright (c) 2016-2019 Håvard Fossli Portions Copyright (c) 2016 John Snow And then use a source control system to ...


7

There is a tremendous difference between public domain and the broad (nebulous) category of what you call "public licenses". Public domain means there is no copyright on the work, and you may deal with it virtually without restriction. An open-source or free-software license means that copyright does exist on the work, but the copyright owner will allow you ...


7

By patent troll protection, I take it you refer to what the linked site expresses as "This license provides an express grant of patent rights from the contributor to the recipient". It is going to be very difficult to craft a licence that provides that protection but does not even require attribution, because of the problem of derivative works. Suppose ...


7

To satisfy the legal requirement you only need to keep the license in your source code, such as in a LICENSE file or as a comment block in the source code itself. To be nice, you can also display the license information somewhere that users can see it. But if you display the license information to users too verbosely, you might be called "an unmitigated ...


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