New answers tagged

0

Yes, you need to do this. Most of the licences you list don't demand a general-purpose acknowledgement, they specifically require that the copyright notice be preserved; this is often seen as sufficient acknowledgment, also. BSD 3-clause says: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the ...


3

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 ...


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