New answers tagged

3

I'm fairly sure I know what it means, but I have as yet no examples of its use. I think it's designed for use cases along the lines of Cygnus, where a company distributes another party's (A)GPLv3 code to customers who are paying for a support contract, or for some other assumption of responsibility, for issues with the code. Such parties as Cygnus are "...


4

The translations are usually a part of the programme and translations hardly fit another context. So that's a good reason to license them under the same terms as the rest - and it saves you licensing troubles. Graphics assets often are treated differently as they might both come from different sources as well be used in entirely different context. ...


4

If I was to fork the project from the last code point - the only license available to me would be AGPL? I will assume that "the last code point" refers to the las commit that is positively identified as being open-source and under the AGPL license. Technically the answer is no, but practically it is yes. Technically, you can provide your modifications ...


3

With respect to my colleague, I disagree with a lot of his answer. The core analysis I think is correct, not least because it comes straight from the GPL FAQ: if the plugin is tightly coupled to the main body of code, the whole (application and plugin) is a single work, which is a derivative of (amongst other things) the plugin; if not, then not. Note that ...


0

If you do not wish to disclose your sources for the MIT-licensed application, then it would be really helpful to everybody to make that intention clear by changing the license of the application to a closed-source license. The licensing status of your application in combination with a GPL plugin depends very much on how the two interact. If the application ...


Top 50 recent answers are included