82
votes
Accepted
Someone open-sourced an un-open-source project
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 ...
- 39.4k
30
votes
Accepted
Since some software is open source, can you add a feature you created and use it for your own personal use?
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, ...
- 681
29
votes
Accepted
Is re-encoding an audio or video file permitted under CC-BY-ND?
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 ...
- 37.7k
28
votes
Accepted
How to use MIT license in a project?
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 ...
- 5,727
21
votes
Accepted
Quoting GPL licensed text in presentation slides
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 ...
- 7,972
20
votes
Accepted
Is the output of an open source program licensed the same?
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 ...
- 33.4k
19
votes
Since some software is open source, can you add a feature you created and use it for your own personal use?
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 ...
- 5,182
17
votes
Why don't open source licenses give a more specific definition of "derivative works" to reduce ambiguity?
Because open source licenses are copyright licenses, and copyright license do not get to define their scope as they choose; or more precisely there is a "maximum size boundary" to which the ...
- 21.7k
16
votes
Accepted
Allow commercial use, but require removal of company name
If you have a registered trademark for your company name, brands and logos, then you can forbid re-use of those things by not giving out licenses to use your trademarks. This works independent from ...
- 33.4k
13
votes
Accepted
Can derivatives of CC BY-SA works be licensed under CC BY-NC-SA?
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 ...
- 5,700
13
votes
Accepted
Is ripping off an open source library okay?
Generally, a fork done without consultation of the original project (and without the intent to merge change back upstream eventually) is called a "hostile fork". Performing a hostile fork is -- as its ...
- 37.7k
13
votes
Someone open-sourced an un-open-source project
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 ...
- 1,377
13
votes
Allow commercial use, but require removal of company name
Release unbranded policies as open-source - I'd look at CC BY or the CC0 Public Domain Dedication, but there may be others. Your company's branded policies would effectively be a fork of the unbranded ...
- 1,792
13
votes
Why would the GPL be "viral", while EUPL isn't, according to the EUPL authors?
You are not really missing anything.
Open-source licenses are rooted in copyright law in that they give others certain rights that copyright law reserves to the copyright holder (typically, the author)...
- 33.4k
12
votes
Accepted
If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?
Making calls to a public API
If there's a public API server that has it's source code licensed with AGPL, and if I make an app that uses these public endpoints in some part of it, ... is this ...
- 2,813
12
votes
Accepted
Can I fork and modify gpl3 licensed code and release it with Apache v2 license?
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 ...
- 53k
11
votes
Is the output of an open source program licensed the same?
Your "knowledge" in the first paragraph is not correct. Only some Open Source licenses require that modifications of the software must be also licensed under the same license. These licenses are often ...
- 111
11
votes
Best practices for relicensing what was once a derivative work
Copyright law does not define a point where you have changed so much of an original work that your changed version stops being a derived work. Once something is a derived work, it always remains a ...
- 33.4k
10
votes
Merging parts of another, parallel, fork [MIT]
You are thinking very much about Git, and not at all about the existing MIT license.
You can just copy Jack's code.
You do have explicit permission – the MIT license under which you received Jack's ...
- 39.4k
9
votes
Accepted
Can I fork and sell a modified Apache 2.0 licensed project?
First, a caveat. If this is critical, you should consult a lawyer and explain exactly what you're doing - this answer isn't legal advice.
What you're describing is allowed under the Apache license. ...
9
votes
Accepted
DMCA Takedown Notice received for distributing software licensed under Apache 2.0
On the face of it, this certainly seems like an erroneous or abusive DMCA takedown. The copyright holder had already given you rights to modify and distribute the browser extension by their Apache 2.0 ...
- 37.7k
9
votes
Accepted
Is there a license for legally sharing photos of copyrighted content?
There cannot be such a license. A license grants rights that you hold to other people. You do not hold any rights to other people's artwork. Fair use in the U.S. is not quite a right that you have, ...
- 39.4k
9
votes
Accepted
Is License Zero compatible with other open source licenses like GNU, MIT or BSD licenses for example?
You have asked a fairly broad question so I'll discuss a few snippets, and come back to the License Zero at the end.
Restricting users of free software.
I can't help but want to make sure that my ...
- 39.4k
9
votes
Accepted
Can I Commit LGPL3 Derivative Work To An Apache 2 Licensed Project?
Since your code is derived from the LGPLv3 code you are bound by that license – it is a copyleft license like the GPLv3, just with a linking exception. You do not have the right to license this code ...
- 39.4k
9
votes
Do physical assets created directly from GPLed, copyleft digital designs (not programs or libraries) acquire the same license?
I use LGPL licensed software to create some digital assets that contain original designs. [...] The primary use of the assets is the creation of physical objects, via machining or 3D printing. I apply ...
- 191
8
votes
learning from GPL infects code
In copyright law, expression is copyrightable, and ideas are not copyrightable. In particular, expression is copyrightable only insofar as that expression is distinct from the idea is expresses. This ...
- 37.7k
8
votes
Accepted
What is derivative work? What is "build upon"?
The concept of a derivative work isn't a software concept, nor a Creative Commons one - it's fundamental to the idea of copyright, preceding the invention of programmable computers by many years. The ...
- 53k
8
votes
Allow commercial use, but require removal of company name
The obvious solution is to "boilerplate" the open-source version with a placeholder company name. People using this document would then be forced to edit it themselves if they want it to ...
- 347
7
votes
Is linking a correct proxy for derivative work determination in (copyleft) FOSS licenses?
No-one knows. It's not the licence, nor the FSF, that determines what constitutes a derivative work - it is copyright law. Since no higher court has (to my knowledge) taken a position on this, we ...
- 53k
7
votes
Accepted
Software is under GNU/GPLv3, which licence to chose for pictures taken from it?
Generally speaking, the output of a program running on input I provide is not a derivative work of the program. It might contain pieces belonging to others (e.g. clipart, canned boilerplate code) ...
- 251
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible