78

Person A has no right to distribute that software, and is committing a copyright violation. Since they hold no rights in the software, they cannot grant a license to others. Any license they purport to offer is void. Third parties that are relying on A's license are probably acting in good faith, but they didn't actually receive a license. When they become ...


50

You should be able to request the complete corresponding modified source code to the complete application from your vendor under the GPL without additional costs in excess of the media. If he refuses, you can contact the FSF as the copyright holder to GCC and tell them your problems with that vendor: they are the only ones who can sue for compliance if the ...


30

Yes VSCode Mureinik already pointed out that VSCode is licensed under the MIT license, which is a permissive license. To quote from it (emphasis mine): Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, ...


29

CC BY-ND 4.0 says in section 2(a)(4): Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You ...


26

The GPL only affects the source code of the project, not the binaries that are distributed. The strong copyleft clause of the GPL affects the source code, and forces that any derivative works are also licensed under the GPL, and that the source code must be available. Can they do this? Yes, they can. As long as they respect the terms of the license, then ...


24

I posted an answer to the announcement post that pretty much sums up why part of this - the exception - is a bad idea: You're essentially creating a crayon license. If you modify the terms of an existing license, you create what is known as a crayon license. Those are a problem - see "How can a “crayon” license be a problem?" for the reasons why. ...


20

On one hand the "modified version" is clearly "release[d] to the public in some way" to the "program's users" (i.e. the players), however on the other hand it is kept as an "internal" tool. This is not correct. Exposing the server, public or private, is not considered distribution according to the terms of the GPL and so the requirements of the GPL do not ...


20

The Berne Convention on copyright specifies the Right to Quote as an exception to copyright. Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including ...


19

Yes, they can publish a PDF without publishing the modified LaTeX sources. No, this is not DRM. CC-BY-SA is not an open-source license. It is intended for creative works such as photographs or writings even where there might not be any kind of editable source format. The license explicitly allows any licensee to change the format of the work: 2(a)(4): ...


19

The freedom to modify a piece of software is an essential open-source freedom covered by any open-source license, specifically the MIT License which VSCode is licensed under. In other words - you most certainly can do this.


18

Depending on how they chose to provide their fork, yes. The MIT license, which you chose to license your work under, doesn't prevent anyone downstream from changing the license, nor from changing the license of a derivative - unlike a copyleft license such as the GPL. They can essentially license their fork how they like. If they relicense it under CC BY-...


17

The MIT license is so simple, you should be able to find the answer to your questions by just reading it. It has only one requirement: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. This means that you have no obligation to specify that a program is a derivative work, nor to ...


16

If you have not copied the code directly, this sort of thing is usually OK, and exempt from copyright laws. Specifically, mathematical formulae, ideas, inventions, recipes and facts cannot be protected by copyright. So just the knowledge that a format is handled in a particular way is not a copyright issue. Clever shortcuts and time-saving algorithms are not ...


15

In general, the license of the software used to create a file doesn't have any influence on the possible licenses you can distribute that file under. For example, if you use Microsoft Word to write a document, or gcc to compile a program, then the license of Word/gcc doesn't affect the license you can use for the document/program. The reason that the ...


14

What's the difference? Is there a difference at all? The obvious difference is that "derivative (work)" is a legal term, and "fork" is a software term. For example, the musical and motion picture "West Side Story" (by Jerome Robbins, Robert Wise, Arthur Laurents and Ernest Lehman) is a derivative work of the stage play "Romeo and Juliet" (by William ...


14

The code is a derived work of the grammar. (but not of ANTLR) The Grammar file is a description of how to parse the language, written in EBNF. The source code generated by ANTLR etc is a description of how to parse the language, written in Java (etc). The source code was derived from the Grammar, using ANTLR. It is thus a derived work, of the Grammar (but ...


13

While the position of the FSF about the interpretation of the GPL is clear, a few people have opposed this position. Linus' position that is cited in the OP is, that all combined parts must be meaningless without being part of the combination to form a derivate. Matt Asay compares linking of software to the act of referencing a character, a scene or ...


13

I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?) As a copyright holder you always have the option to dual license your works under any licenses you choose, including proprietary/commercial licenses. If you want to do so with others' contributions then you would be wise to get them ...


12

Yes, your program must also be GPL. GPL is quite clear on this matter: if your program links to a GPL library, no matter the type of linking, then your program also comes under the GPL (when you distribute). LGPL adds a dynamic linking exception, but this doesn't apply in your case. With Java it's no different; if your program links with a GPL .jar, it is ...


12

Yes, provided they license their improvements under MIT or another free/libre license. Please note that MIT (Expat) is a permissive license, so the fork may no longer be free/libre software - the improvements may even be proprietary (ARR) - in that case, the other party will be able to sell the improved version, but you will not have that option (but you ...


12

It certainly sucks when people take your work and use it in ways against your permission, like copying your copyleft work without also sharing their changes. Fortunately you don't have to go straight to the lawyers, as there are a number of things you can do, and also some things to check, to be safe. Is it worth it? Copyright infringement for software is ...


12

The Project_A is a decompiled version of another project (Project_B). But the original Project_B is not open source, AND Project_B never granted Person_A permission to open source the project. You are asking a legal question (so consult your lawyer). I am not a lawyer, but I am understanding that in the European Union, decompilation or reverse engineering ...


12

If I fork a library that uses the GPL3 license and heavily modify it, can I then release the new library with an ApacheV2 license No, you may not. Your library is still, by your own admission, a derivative of the original GPLv3 code. GPLv3 s5c says that if you convey a derivative work, you must do so under GPLv3. I've also contacted the original project'...


11

I'll use Steam as an example. Steam is Valve Software's platform for hosting games (and movies etc.); it is itself proprietary. Initially it was Windows-only, but in the last few years it has been made available on Mac OS X and on Linux. (In fact Valve now have their own Debian-based Linux distribution, Steam OS.) On Linux platforms it uses a number of open ...


11

When you release software as open source, it's your intention that others can take it and do whatever they want with it — either as copyleft (where they must do so under the same license) or as permissive software (where they can choose a different license if they want to). Taking the software, changing it (for example, by taking out ads) and sharing it ...


11

No, it’s not allowed. It says on the license summary page: No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. And in the license: For Licensed Material (i.e., the unmodified work): No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional ...


10

Well, it basically boils down to what is understood as a derivate. A program that dynamically links a library is a derivate in this point of view, because it as a whole delivers the product function to the user. If you remove the library it stops working. A similar situation with plugins that are dynamically loaded and linked - without the original program ...


10

In theory, you have the right to get the complete source of that modified GCC. But no one can enforce your receipt of the source. The 'perpetrator' always has the legal choice to stop distributing, and perhaps also pay a monetary settlement. You would prefer that they were compelled to distribute the source, but the way the law is actually interpreted does ...


10

TL;DR: yes, the software you distribute which builds on grammar files under copyright for which you have a GPLv3 license must also be licensed under the GPLv3. Your software is made up of several parts. The ANTLR runtime (BSD) The original grammar files (GPLv3) The rest of your software Your software contains in part a machine translation of the grammar ...


10

If you adapt a file, you have to satisfy the licensing requirements for that file, whatever your changes and whatever the licensing requirements. If the module only specifies Copyright ... and BSD, I'd start by seeking clarification from the original author, since there are different versions of the BSD license (two-clause, three-clause and the obsolete four-...


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