17
Company A violated the license by redistributing in a manner they were not licensed to do so when they changed from CC X to CC Y.
Company B thought they were doing a permitted thing by taking what turned out to be incorrectly / illegally licensed, but thought doesn't count, so they have no right to redistribute and so they too would be in violation of ...
14
Company A is certainly liable for their misrepresentation of licensing terms. However, that does not legally excuse Company B's downstream distribution under those wrong terms; they have (accidentally) committed copyright infringement as well.
In the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort, meaning that Company B's ignorance and ...
8
Requiring people to contribute their changes back to the original project is a bit of a problem point for licenses.
For open-source license, such a requirement fails the "desert island test" and prevent the license from being an open-source license. The desert island test means that a group of people on a desert island with no way of contacting the outside ...
6
Commercial activities which infringe copyright don't become non-infringing simply by becoming non-commercial; that is, the commercial nature of your activity has very little bearing on its infringing nature. You are also distributing this word list with your game, so please disabuse yourself of the idea that you are not republishing the material.
That said,...
6
To answer the principal question in the body: yes, this would violate any such applicable patents. A patent provides the legal right to "exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent". Note that although some of those activities are implicitly commercial, others are not; making ...
6
What would be a suitable license for this situation?
The license that comes closest to your desires seems to be the Apache 2.0 license.
It is a permissive license that allows derived works to be distributed under different terms than your template and it has a mechanism for handling attribution notices. The license does have a requirement that if different ...
answered Nov 18 '19 at 14:27
Bart van Ingen Schenau
12.5k1 gold badge21 silver badges37 bronze badges
6
I would strongly advise against using any v1.0 Creative Commons license, since the most recent iteration is v4.0, and has made many improvements to clarity and enforceability (especially in varied international contexts). Furthermore, Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) should suit you just fine.
CC BY-SA's attribution requirement in Section 3(a)(1)(A) ...
6
I want to publish my re-written code with new features on GitHub with MIT license. Can I do it or will I encounter problems?
No, you can not publish your rewritten and extended code, because the CC BY-NC-ND license under which you received the original code does not give you permission to publish your changed code.
For reasons only known to the author of ...
answered Jul 6 '19 at 15:23
Bart van Ingen Schenau
12.5k1 gold badge21 silver badges37 bronze badges
4
If someone asks you to print the model then you are likely in the clear. The 2nd and 9th circuit courts have decided that a non-commercial entity can contract a for profit entity to make their copy, and as long as the entity doing the copying is working within their normal parameters, they are not using the work commercially.
So you definitely can't sell ...
3
I'd consider that a license violation to use CC BY-NC licensed material in such way. The CC BY-NC license says already in its name that the licensed content must not be used in commercial context.
There exist a study from CC which gives general interpretation of the NC clause as
On a scale of 1-100 where 1 is “definitely noncommercial” and 100 is “...
3
Unless you go out of your way and convert the images to an array of numbers and include them in that way in your source code so that they become part of the built binary, your app is not a derived work of the images it shows. This means that the images and the app itself can be licensed independently.
As the original images are under the CC BY-SA-4.0 ...
3
The CC licenses – and copyright1 in general – allow the creator/artist/author to opt out of attribution. The creator can decide under which name or pseudonym they should be attributed, or whether they would prefer not to be associated with the work at all. For you, this might be a simple checkbox:
If you upload a photo, you agree to license it under the ...
3
However, it sounds like the Creative Commons licenses put a bit of emphasis on the artistic traits on the protected material ("musical work, performance, or sound recording", "moving image") and are explicitly not recommended for software.
The Creative Commons licenses were created as an alternative to the open-source software licenses for non-software ...
2
Yes, you can link CC-SA content along with your code.
Weak/strong copyleft is a term that only exists for software, because it only defines an exception to the copyleft.
To use CC-SA content, you just have to give credit to the original author and share the content (modified or unmodified) under the same license. Not your code.
The easiest way to do so ...
2
In your README, include a statement for each asset used,
Project
Attribution
“Foo” by bar is licensed under CC BY 2.0
"Baz" by qux is licensed under CC BY 2.0
...
Note: bar and qux would be the names of the original creator of each asset specifically.
Or, you can create a separate file, e.g., assets/NOTICE; and include them there.
2
This takes us on another visit to Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, that being some of the only guiding jurisprudence we have on the question of derivative works and CC licences. Note that is not a binding judgement anywhere, but as courts tend to follow each other unless they see good reasons not to, it gives us some idea of how other courts might approach the ...
2
Most likely, you could have used any image in your application and you just choose these ones. If that is the case, your application and the images are separate works as far as copyrights are concerned.
This means that you can use any license you like for the code of your application, but the images need to stay under the CC BY-SA license.
1
For example, the TeX license states that any modified version has to be distributed under a different name. This is allowed by the Open Source Initiative.
But please read and understand David Wheeler's "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.". The essay is oldish, but still very much relevant. Knitting your own license is (a) a task for an ...
1
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
In short, no. You're not required to share anything when you use or adapt CC content.
So, while you may share your final product, you aren't required to share the intermediate forms, including source code.
Quoting from the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license (paraphrased and emphasis added):
Section 3.a. (Attribution) says "If You Share ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
