30

There is no free software / open source license that will satisfy your requirements. These licenses generally focus on the freedoms of end users, they are not trying to restrict anyone. The freedom to use software for any purpose (including to compete with your offerings) is considered essential. Using a freedom-preserving license with the purpose of ...


7

Are the old commits in project A with MIT still considered MIT? No, that code was never licensed under the MIT license: the individual(s) that made that offer to you never hard the right to make it in the first place. You may as well ask if the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge that you bought in an alleyway is still valid, even if the state of New York told you ...


6

No you cannot. Copyright does not regulate use of information Criminals and state actors operate under different rules. There are different kinds of “IP”. Copyright is well-known, but does not cover ideas or methods. Copyright is more about protecting creative expression. Thus, copyright protects your paper as a literary work, but not any methods or ...


6

If your book does not contain any actual code snippets or transliterations of the code into English (i.e. code translated to sufficiently descriptive pseudo-code), but it only describes the ideas contained in the code, then your book is not a derived work in the sense of copyrights and you are not constrained in how you publish and license the book. If the ...


5

Version 4 of CC BY-NC license explicitly says the user cannot share adapted material for Commercial purpose: Section 2.a. License grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed ...


4

A had “no apparent license”. Without a license, you can do what copyright law allows you to do, which is very little. So It was not legal for B to publish A under the MIT license. Legally, it was never published under that license. Instead, you were duped into thinking it was. Now A is offering a license. B can now be published with a valid license, but not ...


4

Section 4.a of the CC BY-NC-ND license clearly says "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." Therefore it is not necessary to include the entire language of the license in your files, just a link is enough. It may also be helpful to ...


4

I am referring to the license language shown on this page: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode , not to the human-readable summary. What you are trying to do looks like 'Collective Work' as defined in 1.a . Rights for collective works are granted in section 3.a . There is a restriction that is especially relevant for you in section 4....


3

If the site where you upload your work to requires you to select a license from a limited list of licenses and the license you want to (or are required to) use isn't in that list, then it is best to select the license that is closest to your desired license but is more restrictive. Then you can explain in a comment or description what the actual license is. ...


3

The GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately doesn't hit the mark completely. Although it does mandate that users who interact with the licensed material via network are given the right to receive a copy of the source code, it doesn't mandate publishing the data.


3

The developers behind the Timescale database are attempting to do something in this direction with their license, see e.g. the post on their blog. I am unable to judge, whether this has any chance of surviving in a legal court, but I think it is an interesting attempt anyway ...


3

The Creative Commons licenses make a distinction between the original material you received under the license, and the modifications you make. There are different license conditions for using the original versus how you can license your modified work. The restriction you quote only applies to the original. You cannot take a CC-BY licensed work and, without ...


3

Suppose if I uploaded to my Github repository a .pdf of a technical book I've written and want to share. According to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, if someone were to fork the repository, they would still be bound by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to not modify (create a derivative) and redistribute that derivative, correct? Yes, that is correct. Forking a repository does not ...


2

They are not directly compatible. Two licenses A and B are compatible if both licenses allow the combination to be covered by licensing terms that don't contradict each other. Implicit and explicit compatibility. Sometimes this compatibility is achieved through explicit compatibility paths. E.g. the Creative Commons licenses have license version upgrade ...


2

IANAL/IANYL, but mostly, as I read it, it is not possible. When you join the PRS as a writer, you agree to their standard terms of assignment for writers, which amongst other things say: [2a] you transfer to us absolutely for all parts of the world the rights which belong to you on the date of this Agreement or which you may acquire or own whilst you ...


2

CC-BY (Creative Commons - With Attribution) is quite clear and simple: you may use and distribute this work for any purpose, unmodified or unchanged without any charge on one condition: give appropriate credits. So, as long as you give appropriate credits to the original author or creator, you may distribute it under all licenses which in turn also require ...


2

My gut feeling is you can't get what you want. Assuming that works created from a template are derivatives of that template, you're saying you'll distribute your template CC BY-NC, but with an exception that derivative works are simply under CC BY. Alice can then take the template, make a significant addition to it, and release that (it, too, being a ...


2

It may be helpful to read the actual license text. The page that you link to says: This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. Disclaimer. It appears that the text for "Attribution" is identical on all of the licenses. It's a more human-friendly summary of what is allowed. Continuing to read the human-readable ...


2

According to this page [1], these are the most restrictive: European Union Public License 1.1 European Union Public License 1.2 GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 Open Software License 3.0 Personally, I use Open Software License 3.0 with my projects. https://choosealicense.com/appendix


2

Short answer Can you do this? Yes Will they abide by it? Quite possibly not Is it still worth doing? Maybe Long answer As someone who cares about a fair and just society, it's important to remember than a license is one of many tools in your tool box, so you need to ask: a) How will this tool serve my goals? b) What other tools would be better used and ...


2

It says what it says. The tool's output is not covered by the license of the tool. Same as the output of a video editor is not covered by the license of the tool. Or a compiled program is not covered by the licence of the compiler. This exception is needed, as the tool (probably) injects a lot of its own code into the output. This will make the output a ...


2

Material that is published under any license at all is copyrighted, and that copyright ought to be formally registered with the government. Whether or not it has been registered, however, it is "owned." And, "ownership has its privileges." One of those privileges is that the owner can choose to license it any way he likes, and he can ...


1

After a lot more research I found the answer right on the Creative Commons website. The quick answer is....DO NOT use the Creative Commons license for the software. It's not a good choice. Instead, use a license by either the Open Source Initiative or the Free Software Foundation. Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/ Free Software Foundation: ...


1

I presume you want to sell (licenses to) software that uses the icons, not the icons themselves. As long as you don't modify them, and tell your users where to get them (and possibly change them for others) and state clearly under what conditions they are being used I believe you are in the clear.


1

The terms of the CC BY-SA license do not forbid you to make money of the work or a derived work. The main requirements are that you give proper attribution and that a derived work is licensed under the CC BY-SA license (or a select few other copyleft licenses). From where I sit, I can't tell if your service would be a derived work of Conceptnet Numberbatch, ...


1

The MIT license doesn't limit any such use, so that should be (legally) fine. On the other hand, the authors did choose the license for a reason, common courtesy would dictate to keep any derivatives (like a translation certainly is) under the same license. At very least, contact the original authors and ask. They'll probably also want to keep track of ...


1

I don't believe it's official, but they do exist at https://github.com/idleberg/Creative-Commons-Markdown/. It seems well maintained, at least at the time of this writing. They welcome changes so if anything looks wrong, report it.


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