10

The MIT license doesn't "bind" you to use the MIT license for your application, but it's a simple way to comply with the license if you haven't got pressing reasons to use another license. Yes, all you need to do is to add your own copyright line: The MIT License Copyright (c) 2016 Preyfix Copyright (c) 2004-2010, Sun Microsystems, Inc., Kohsuke ...


6

There is no "exact format" as most licenses let you free in how to organize their notices. One common pattern is to concatenate the different LICENSE in your own LICENSE file, starting with your own license information and an explanation that the following are the license notices of the various dependencies. This is also something that you see a ...


6

The problem is in: rewrite it such that it no longer contains Alice's code It really depends on how how such rewrite is done. Translations are considered derived work, also in the case there there no common "words" between the two implementations. So a (strict) rewrite is a derivation of original code, but a reimplementation is not (an implementation ...


5

Note: consider this answer a work-in-progress. After nice debates in comments and chat I see there is needing to provide references and explanations to many assertions. Short answer: Carol has the right to do it and new font processing library can have a single MIT license. Little bit longer answer: according to copyright law (note that even if GPL is a ...


5

tl;dr: Be as clear as you can be, to avoid confusion for re-users. When you take a file from one project, and inject it in to another, you are creating a combined work and/or a derivative work (depending on the amount of coupling between them). This is not a problem. The general gist of things is answered well at Combining code written under different ...


5

There are some legal implications for using a GPLv2 licensed driver, but they are not very onerous. The main requirement is that you inform your customers about the fact that GPLv2 licensed software is being used, tell them which software it is, tell them where to obtain the sources for the exact version you are distributing (you may have to host them ...


4

License wise, you can combine code from multiple platforms into one if the licenses are compatible with each other. Two licenses are compatible if Neither license contains a restriction on what license must apply to other code in the project The restrictions/requirements that a license imposes on the rest of the codebase is not forbidden by the license ...


3

IANAL/IANYL. That said, I got so frustrated with this question that some time ago I asked a barrister specialising in IP law for his take on how English and Welsh law would most likely approach this question. Firstly, remember is that licences do not inhere in software. They are instead accepted by persons (legal and natural) when software is conveyed to ...


3

There's a difference between "mere aggregation" - distributing multiple pieces of software together on the same media - and a single program that depends on multiple parts. The GNU FAQ admits that this difference is fuzzy and may depend on the interpretation of a court. Nevertheless, you can stay relatively clear from this by separating the dataset from the ...


3

The BSD 2-clause license is really permissive. The only condition which applies to distribution of source code is this one: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. The three parts of the license (the copyright notice, the list of conditions and the disclaimer) must all ...


2

If you need exact wording, here is an example that shows how I dealt with this in Mozilla's copy of libpng by inserting three additional paragraphs to the libpng LICENSE file (IANAL/TINLA disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice): media/libpng/LICENSE: This copy of the libpng notices is provided for your convenience. In case of any ...


2

If the GPL code is a clean, defined, module, and you remove every scrap of it, and replace it by some unrelated code, you're fine. People do it every day.


1

The BSD license and the GPLv2 are considered compatible licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and thus joint works that include both licenses are legally distributable. However, all of the terms of the GPLv2 apply to this distribution. Your modified version of the BSD-licensed code depends on the GPL-licensed code (accoding to you). In that case, the ...


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