13

The usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not personalized legal advice. Am I reading too much into the license, or am I somehow misunderstanding copyright law and how it works with Creative Commons licenses? Maybe a bit of both. The bottom line is that "copyright law" is not a license itself, it's the legal foundation that makes ...


11

It may help to read this answer to get a bit more insight into the mental model you're likely using, and how it sometimes goes wrong. In any case, it is likely that once someone has a copyright interest in a work, they retain that interest in adaptations or derivatives of the work until their interest expires due to the passage of time. No amount of ...


10

The GPL FAQ is fairly clear: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission ...


8

Putting "now" is a bad practice since it will necessarily become inaccurate over time. Even if you continue to update your work and remember to change "now" to a specific year whenever you make your final change, years-old copies of your work made by other will not have copyrightable changes in the current year. Even if you only ever distribute copies for ...


8

To quote from Wikipedia: Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. So the copyright in what you've written covers the creative aspect of what you've written, but not the idea(s) therein expressed. If the code is entirely your own work, then as far as copyright is concerned, you are ...


8

As curiousdanii notes in comments above, we already have a canonical question that addresses the issue of what your rights are with respect to published-but-unlicensed code, specifically on GitHub, and you should read it. But your case is more complex, because as you note I know the author and have their explicit permission to use the code. This changes ...


7

The first thing to remember here is that licenses, open source or otherwise, are effective only because of copyright. Without copyright protecting your code, anyone could just take it and do whatever they like with it. Copyright law (fairly universally across jurisdictions as it's part of the Berne Convention) sets the default position is "all rights ...


5

Keep it simple: CC-BY 3.0 means you have to give attribution. It doesn't require you to share any code or whatsoever. Thus it is generally deemed appropriate to have e.g. in your page footers a line which reads like: This page uses the CC-BY 3.0 licensed template HTML5UP. In your repository itself I'd be explicit in the LICENSE.txt All content ...


5

There are two aspects to this question. First, there is the effect of using a third-party tool on copyrights. The nice thing is that the copyright license of tools don't affect the possible copyright licenses of the output. This also means, for example, that Microsoft has no say in how you license the documents you write with MS Word. Secondly, there is ...


5

A license is a legal agreement between the author and the the user of the code. Contracts usually need no special form (at least in my legislation); an oral contract is just as binding as a written one. But it's hard to prove an oral agreement in court or otherwise when it comes to a dispute. Following that argument: you are fine to use the code, if you have ...


4

Regarding the copyright, copyright automatically goes to the person (or organization) that wrote the code. You will own the copyright of all the code you write (unless you have a contract that says otherwise), but you will not own the copyrights on code written by others. And it doesn't matter if those others contributed directly to your project or if they ...


4

GPLv3 s7 is clear about permissible additional restrictions that can be applied to GPLv3. I would argue that your clause is in fact a restriction, because it restricts people from conveying their modifications under pure-GPLv3, and thus can be ignored by any recipients of the fork, under GPLv3 s10. If you edit your requirement into the licence to make it ...


4

Is there a license that protects me in case they reuse my source code to build a new application and I no longer get 8%? By accepted definition on https://opensource.org/licenses such a license won't be open source (or free software, e.g. GPLv3+ software). I am not a lawyer. You need to pay one. Read a paper on Simple Economics of open source (one of ...


3

One point that you are missing is that "trivial" things do not create a copyright of their own; nobody gets a copyright on VLOOKUP() as a whole just by using it in a YouTube video. The rest of your examples you're pretty much correct on - some of them you can use under CC-BY SA (which as you note is a problem for code) or you have to reimplement ...


3

I couldn't find any lists of "add those copyright notices and licenses for this release of GCC/libstdc++/glibc and you are good to go" in the manual or on the internet This is not surprising. As you say, GCC is in its entirety under GPLv3 with the GCC runtime library exception, and glibc is similarly under LGPLv2.1. The former states in s1 that You ...


3

It is legal to mention multiple people in a copyright line. It is also legal to have multiple copyright lines next to each other. My recommendation would be to first add a copyright line mentioning the original author, any contributors you can identify and the range of years they worked on the project. After that, add a new copyright line with the current ...


3

This is an interesting question, because you are mixing code copyright and copyright of articles and facts, which work quite different. The easiest parts are the facts. A mathematical proof is something that deserves academic acknowledgement, but no copyright, as it just states facts and facts cannot be copyrighted. Describing the proof may warrant copyright....


3

The language in GPLv2 s3b says nothing about the permissible time to fulfil a demand for Complete Corresponding Source, but given that the offer only has to be valid for three years, I doubt that a 15-month delay could be seen as reasonable by anyone. In any case, COVID isn't, generally, a permissible reason to delay on a legal obligation; see all sorts of ...


3

Just as an addition to MadHatter's good answer, you should cite the original paper where the algorithm was published in the help files for the commands or the package using it, although this is not a copyright issue. The help files are somehow academic publications and intellectual honesty rules for academic publications apply, and hence the need to cite. If ...


3

It has been held that if there is only one way to express the idea in software, that one implementation is not protected ... If an implementation must be done in a particular way, there is no room for creativity, which means the implementation is not protected by copyright. But that source goes on to note that [t]his is rare; even with trivial ...


3

These labels are only as good as the metadata that goes into them. When the license is unknown, it is reported as “proprietary” as a fallback. The issue is known as #398 but it has not yet been fixed. My guess it that the software contains assets under the Free Art license, which doesn't have an SPDX identifier, so the license metadata is not machine-...


3

Yes, the way you show is exactly how the copyright notice should look like. You might want to give date ranges, if applicable, like Copyright 1993 - 2001 the other Copyright 2019 - 2020 Me Copyright belongs to all people who contributed to the content of the file, each to what was individually written. That in turn means that you should add your copyright ...


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 ...


3

There are several levels of thing going wrong here. Firstly, as Brandin notes above, with a few odd exceptions the licence of a program does not affect the licensing status of the output; the status of the output is much more usually a function of the licence on the program's inputs. Secondly, if this is really a GPL-licensed plugin, then even if the ...


3

Within copyright law, there is a distinction between idea and the expression of that idea. The idea itself is not subject to copyright protection, but only the expression is. When an idea can only be expressed in one (or a very limited number) way, then the Merger doctrine states that the idea and the expression are one and the same and that the expression ...


3

The sole function of the copyright statement in modern, well-managed free software licences is as a chunk of text that must be reproduced verbatim. This from the MIT licence: The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. This from Apache 2.0: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative ...


3

The MIT license requires you to preserve the original copyright & license notice as a kind of attribution, but you can make it clear that it's no longer in effect. For example, you might write a license notice like this: Copyright 2020 Your Name All rights reserved. This software is based on libfoobar: Copyright 2017 Original Author (Full text of MIT ...


2

In the meantime, the project has been relicensed under MIT and patent grants were removed. The original PATENTS file is here: https://github.com/facebook/draft-js/commit/585af35c3a8c31fefb64bc884d4001faa96544d3#diff-7373d27f0ea94a5b649f893e20fffeda Curiously, the MIT licence does not provide patent protection for contributors. So this seems to be a step ...


2

The requirements of copyright licenses only come into play when you provide the code to other legal entities (people or businesses), with the assumption that they get to decide what to do with it. If the code doesn't leave your company, or if you only give the code to a hosting company with the explicit instruction to run it on a (virtual) server that you ...


2

Yes, you may do this. I would summarize your obligations as Ensure recipients of your software are given or offered the modified library code Ensure that recipients can rebuild your software using a further modified version of the library. This generally means offering the at least the compiled, linkable object code of your own application code alongside ...


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