36

To my knowledge there is no such license. Note that this license may not be considered an open-source license. In no case would such a license be a permissive license that could be compatible with MIT or Apache 2 projects. Any wording to exclude copyleft licenses would probably also exclude any other open source licenses, so that your software would only be ...


27

the code or derivative works can never be re-licensed under a GPL/Copyleft license Ironically, I think the best practical strategy to accomplish this is to license your work under a (very weak) copyleft license that is incompatible with other existing copyleft licenses. Your proposed terms are not "permissive" as the term is used in FLOSS parlance: much ...


21

The Free Software Foundation invented the term Copyleft. Here's what they have to say about it: Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. ...


21

First, this is not legal advice and there is no definitive answer. But yes, such a company may indeed be forced to publish its proprietary code in order to comply with the license (or it may not, read on). As noted in by ArtOfCode in an answer to a slightly different question section 8 of the GPLv3 provides you with some grace time that allows you fix the ...


21

Putting software under the GPL does not mean abandoning ownership? Absolutely not. In nations signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright is the default, which means by default only the author (or current copyright holder, if the original author transfers the copyright) may reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, etc. The author of a work may use ...


21

IANAL, but I believe the answer is yes, you violate GPL. If you distribute binaries, then GPL requires that you also distribute all the files necessary to rebuild that same binary, and to make modifications. GPLv3 has the specific term "corresponding source", which you must convey in addition to, and in a similar manner to the source code. Under section 1: ...


20

If you release your code under a permissive license, it is not possible for anyone to "relicense" it under a less permissive one like the GPL. By issuing a permissive license, you grant everyone the right to use your code in any way you choose. If someone, say, adds your code to a larger GPL'd product, that does not in any way affect your original license: ...


18

Copyleft is actually a term coined by Richard Stallman (also called RMS) who is the pioneer of the Free Software Movement which ultimately resulted in today's world where people take using FOSS software so much for granted. Stallman originally used this term to distinguish his way of free software licensing (GNU GPL/LGPL) from the other Copyright licenses ...


14

Software dependencies: A not-too-technical introduction Summary Programs depend on other programs, often with many deep levels of indirection. Million of packaged FLOSS programs are available through public repositories for easy dependencies download and installation. How dependent programs relate to and interact with each other can be more or less ...


13

Anyone may use the software for any purpose they choose ... However, no one may place any type of restrictions on my software Your basic problem is that these are self-contradictory aims. In the context of modern copyright law, the receipt of freedoms doesn't automatically require you to extend them to others. If you don't want to allow people to take ...


13

The CC ShareAlike terms merely say that whenever you do make a derivative work of the image, distribution of that derivative work must be under ShareAlike (or CC-approved ShareAlike-compatible) terms. The relevant unsettled question is exactly when a derivative work is created, which lies in the domain of copyright law, not the license terms. Certainly ...


12

Any OSI or FSF approved open source license does not allow to put restrictions on who can use the software and for what purpose. The FSF calls these the essential freedoms 0 and 1: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you ...


12

I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?) As a copyright holder you always have the option to dual license your works under any licenses you choose, including proprietary/commercial licenses. If you want to do so with others' contributions then you would be wise to get them ...


11

You only need to share the image under CC-BY-SA. This means your project will be multi-licensed. The important part is that only the image is currently under BY-SA. Since the only requirement of the license is that if you share, modify or redistribute the image, you have to license it under BY-SA. The license of the image can have no bearing on the rest of ...


11

In the large majority of cases, the software of a program and the artwork used by a program are not related to each other where copyright is concerned. An exception might be an image that was created by a program from a fixed formula and the source code of that program. For a work to be considered a derived work, there must be a way to go from the original ...


11

Maybe. Yes, you have to comply with the terms of the host application's license. However, a copyleft platform can choose to go either way. Some copyleft applications have a specific licensing exemption for plugins; in other cases, the technical architecture does not result in a derived work and thus an obligation. Consider a plugin architecture where a ...


10

Well, it basically boils down to what is understood as a derivate. A program that dynamically links a library is a derivate in this point of view, because it as a whole delivers the product function to the user. If you remove the library it stops working. A similar situation with plugins that are dynamically loaded and linked - without the original program ...


10

While the position of the FSF about the interpretation of the GPL is clear, a few people have opposed this position. Linus' position that is cited in the OP is, that all combined parts must be meaningless without being part of the combination to form a derivate. Matt Asay compares linking of software to the act of referencing a character, a scene or ...


10

The terms "copyleft" and "ShareAlike" both refer to reciprocal licensing, in which downstream users receive the same rights to your changes that you received for the original work. But copyleft is a stricter concept than ShareAlike, adding a requirement that derivatives be made available in a form that gives downstream users the technical ability to make ...


10

There may be a number of ways, but there is no guarantee. If you have enough certainty, you could start a legal case and ask for sources to be disclosed. This in fact happened in the SCO case. If you can reverse-engineer the code, and show that it has non-trivial code that is exactly like yours, that would help. Whether it would convince a judge and a jury ...


10

...is it possible to apply the philosophy of GPL to non-software things...? To answer this very narrowly, yes: the GPL itself can be applied to any creative work (writing, pictures, videos, etc.) that are eligible for copyright. However, your question appears to ask about the application of copyleft principles to works outside of the scope of copyright. To ...


10

Copyleft is a general idea, not a specific license. It's used for talking about licenses. It means the general idea of using copyright to ensure open redistribution. Since copyright is usually used for the opposite of that, copyleft is copyright "turned on its head", thus the punning name. As for why people would use that term instead of "Share-Alike": ...


9

Generally speaking only the copyright holder can instigate legal action in these kinds of circumstances, since they're the party whose license is being violated. So it's not up to you to enforce the license, all you can do is inform the copyright holder about the violation, try to convince the violator, and (as a last resort) communicate more widely about ...


9

Short answer: Copyleft is a term coined by the FSF and implies that if you distribute a derivative work of a work under a copyleft license, you must distribute the derivative under the same license as the original work (it may however be combined with works under a permissive license that is deemed "compatible", read on). Some people use the pejorative name ...


9

To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no "pacifist" or "non-military" FOSS license that has been vetted by actual lawyers. Therefore if you wish to use a good license of this nature, you will need to come up with your own, vetted by your lawyers. Writing a good license is hard; for a pacifist license it would be very important to clear the ...


8

This pair of questions (whether dynamic linking creates a derivative or not) is really a false dichotomy. I think Linus Torvalds is spot on when he says (quoted in the question): So "linking" basically has very little to do with "derived" per se. One problem with this false dichotomy it that leads to reasoning that if dynamic linking, does not create a ...


8

No, a court will not enjoin a violator of terms of the GPL or other copyleft license to disclose proprietary source code. First of all, as Free Radical pointed out, injunctive relief is not a remedy for breach of contract. So a court will not enjoin a disclosure of proprietary source code for violating the terms of an agreement (assuming the license is ...


8

The combination of conditions you set don't meet the Open Source Definition as set by the OSI. From the Annotated Open Source Definition: Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Rationale: The mere ability to read ...


8

Prahlad provides an excellent answer on the origin of the term, but doesn't expand that much on the legal implications of using the term. In summary, it forces any modifications to copyleft works to also be released under the same terms. First off, copyleft has no legal significance. This means that if you were to say that a project is copyleft, it doesn'...


8

Such a license would definitely not be open source (6: No discrimination against fields of endeavor) nor approved by the FSF (Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose). The rationale for not allowing such restrictions is that defining exactly what should be allowed or forbidden will lead to a quagmire. In your particular case: ...


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