58

The GPL, and software licensing in general, must be understood in the wider context of copyright. Only the copyright holder of a software can issue a license. You have no rights to the software, except through the license (and except for copyright exceptions in your jurisdiction). The GPL does not give you the right to re-publish the software under any ...


54

No free/open-source license may disallow commercial use. The whole purpose of the Free and Open movements is an altruistic one: if you're making your project free and open, you're gifting it to the public at large, under certain terms (which often boil down to "attribute it back to me"). See the Open Source Definition for some explanation of what these ...


48

You've noticed that if a piece of software is "free as in speech," it will probably become "free as in beer" too. That's completely true. The important thing, however, is that the converse is not true. If a piece of software is "free as in beer," it will not automatically become "free as in speech." There are a lot of ...


14

There are no open-source licenses that forbid selling copies of the software, because that kind of restriction is not allowed in a license that is recognized as an open-source license by the community/FSF/OSI. However, there are open-source licenses that make the business model of selling copies of the software very unattractive. These licenses are strong ...


14

Copyright does not allow for that. You need to wait 70 years after the copyright holders' deaths to do this. In that respect it is no different from a closed source license: If you want to change the license, you need permission. Back around 2000 Larry Lessig had a lecture where he explained there are may works, where we cannot contact the author (https://en....


13

Yes you can (but with big caveats) There are several licences that disallow commercial use of the software (or other intellectual property). Most notably CC BY-NC 3.0 but please keep in mind that it's generally not recommended to use CC BY-NC 3.0 licence for software (you still can!). There are several problems associated with this kind of licensing though ...


12

MongoDB requires contributors to sign a contributor agreement where they have to waive all rights so that MongoDB can license the code subsequently under whatever license they see fit. That includes non-free licenses which allows them to sell proprietary extensions which would otherwise be in violation of the GPL, if they had to abide by it.


11

There is uncertainty about whether or not dynamic linking makes a derivative work and thus engages the GPL (pro, con). But reading the python module's README, it seems to me that the developers have already thought carefully about this. Although pdf2image does use poppler, it only uses two commands, which it invokes through userspace ("A python module ...


10

Consider, for a moment, a camp for the "re-education" of political prisoners, otherwise-innocent critics of the current repressive regime. A revolution happens, an enlightened regime comes to power, and the camp is closed. All the guards, administrators, cooks, and carpenters lose their jobs. Is this of net benefit to society, or is it a net ...


10

Is there language I can insert that carves out an exception for patches I make to the open-source dependencies Of course, but you've missed out the second requirement: that it be acceptable to the people who are paying for the work. We can't say whether any given proposal will be acceptable. My standard terms say that "Copyright in all original code, ...


7

The FSF includes Freedom #1 in their Free Software Definition: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A software artifact is not inherently free or nonfree, but the terms under which it is possible (legally and practically) to use, ...


7

Yes, absolutely, and it is important that the GPL allows this. First, the FSF encourages people to sell free software when possible (emphasis mine): Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. [...] Free programs ...


7

This is why most Open Source vendors sell service plans rather than software. Yes, the nature of Open Source licenses would allow anyone to download and install the software for free, and to in turn give free copies of the software to other people. As a result, most Open Source vendors don't sell the software itself - they sell service plans. You can install ...


6

Copyright law is centered around making a copy of something and then doing things with that copy. How such a copy is made is usually not specified in the copyright laws, which makes that a "mental copy", where a work is read and then what was memorized is reproduced, can be regarded as a copy as well. As copyright law works on actually making a ...


6

As far as I am able to understand the author, the specific claims being made here are: Some have claimed that it conflicts with AGPL. There exist some people who claim the AGPL "conflicts" with the Commons Clause. Assuming the author here means "is incompatible with" as the FSF uses the phrase, this is true: there do exist such people, ...


6

The GPL does not restrict how you may use the software, it only places conditions how you can distribute or modify the software. Thus, using a GPL-covered IDE to produce proprietary software is perfectly fine. Similarly, it is well-established that using GPL-covered compilers (like GCC) to compile proprietary software is perfectly fine. An editor, IDE, or ...


6

Just because a language and its toolchains are licensed under the GNU GPL does not mean that any software you create with it also needs to be GPL-licensed. The GPL FAQ reads: Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop nonfree programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them? Yes, because the copyright on the editors and ...


6

Yes, it is legal to sell GPL-licensed software as long as you keep the terms and conditions of the GPL. Those terms and conditions are that you cannot use a different license than the GPL (which gives the recipients certain rights with regard to making changes and redistribution) and that you make the source code available to the recipients. The GPL license ...


5

I don't think it does, no. As the GPL FAQ makes clear: An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are nonfree or GPL-incompatible... pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are ...


5

Version 4 of CC BY-NC license explicitly says the user cannot share adapted material for Commercial purpose: Section 2.a. License grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed ...


5

I plan to publish the complete source code along with documentation and build instructions on github. The intent is to give it away for free [...] and offer [existing users] as well as prospective new customers my services for additional development, maintenance and support. Which license model should I select, to best match this intent? Any free ...


4

No, but you can get close enough: you can prevent your Open Source project from getting included in a closed-source project (for example, by using a GPL license), and then offer a dual-license option for companies who don't want to release their own proprietary code as open source. MySql follows this model, and has since before Oracle bought them.


4

I'm guessing that since you are not reselling the software you should be fine. And also, since the default installation is free, you are not doing piracy by giving for free paid content. Also I've seen many Udemy course using Ubuntu, Windows or MacOs and since they're still on Udemy, so you shoulden't worry too much. If you're still worried about it, ...


4

As we've discussed above, when you say "we want to let them use [our library of controls]", the devil is in the word use. If you're asking "can we let the members of this project run our code without having to pay for it", then the answer is of course "yes". But I suspect that what the project wants is to incorporate your ...


4

The GPL only applies to derivative works of the GPL-covered software. In particular: if you modify the covered software, or if you include the covered software (whether in whole or in part) into another software such as by copying code or by linking a library. The GPL does not extend to other programs, even if those other programs communicate with the GPL-...


4

It's complicated. As others have already stated, "distributing" (GPLv2) or "conveying" (GPLv3) software by selling it is explicitly permitted by both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 as long as the terms of the license are not violated. Any licensee is completely free to sell GPL software and make money off of it. The complication stems from the ...


4

You are broadly correct that if your program includes CC BY-SA code from someone else, you must license the entire program under CC BY-SA. Note that this doesn't actually force source disclosure -- unlike the GPL, you may place your binary only under CC BY-SA, and keep your source code private -- but it would require unrestricted downstream redistribution of ...


3

Yes, you can. If you statically link to the Cygwin library, the linking exception allows you to just distribute your application without consideration for the fact that you use Cygwin. If you dynamically link to the Cygwin library and include that DLL in your distribution, then you have to comply with the LGPL requirements for distributing LGPL code. This ...


3

Yes this kind of licensing is probably allowed, but no, you likely cannot use the software for commercial purposes. The Apache 2.0 license only applies to that component itself. It is a permissive license that allows combination with software under other licenses, even if that license is copyleft or proprietary. All the Apache license requires is that ...


3

You can create and distribute proprietary software using most libraries that ship with mingw. In general, if you are using a library (which includes libstdc++, libgcc and libwinpthread in your question) your program is subject to the license of the library. If the library is distributed under GPL, your program would also be subject to GPL. Because of this, ...


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