10

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 code. This license only has a single condition: that you keep Jack's copyright + license notice. If you want to preserve Jack's Git history you'll have to do ...


7

would mean that any project on a public Github repository gives automatically full redistribution rights to anyone ? It means that anyone may copy the work verbatim to a new repository on the website GitHub.com. GitHub's ToS do not require uploaders to allow any other kinds of redistribution. What if the license limits the redistribution (only allow ...


5

The requirement to keep the copyright notices intact is to ensure that people cannot make an (implied) false claim of authorship by listing only themselves in the copyrights when actually they built upon the work of others. The requirement to keep the license notices intact is to inform the downstream recipients of the rights they get with regards to the ...


5

I have research information on licensing for the past two days and from what I understand my project is considered as a derivative work from the original project. According to that, my project also needs to be under GPL, that I understand. This is mostly correct. The bits of code that you translated from C to Python are almost certainly a derivative work of ...


5

You are certainly allowed to merge MIT/X11/Expat-licensed code into other code under the same license. (You are allowed to merge such permissively licensed code into virtually anything, including copyleft or proprietary code as well.) As long as you keep the copyright notices and license text, you may do just about anything you like. You could eschew git ...


4

Based on section 4 of the license, you need to: keep original copyright comments mark the files as changed (eg. modification copyright XXX XXXX) keep or reproduce the text of the Apache 2 license keep the NOTICE file if it exists It would make sense to leave in the readme that you have created a port. Edit: Clarified that the license text, not the LICENSE ...


4

The new version of Unifont can be embedded freely. As of Unifont version 13.0.04, the fonts are dual-licensed under the SIL Open Font License (OFL) version 1.1 and the GNU GPL 2+ with the GNU font embedding exception. Source: http://unifoundry.com/unifont/


4

If you looked at the actual code (as opposed to a description of the algorithm), it is almost certainly the case that your work is a derivative of the original. As with any other code under the Apache license, you can license your code under any license you wish so long as you comply with the requirements of the Apache license for the code which is derived ...


4

With the GPL, there is no need for any "transfer of ownership" in a legal sense. Anybody can pick up the code and make any changes they like to it, so long as they make those changes available in accordance with the license - and this is what the forks in your example have already done. There may be a community which has formed around the original ...


4

The clearest way to indicate that your (former?) workplace has no copyright interest in the later changes is indeed to add a new copyright notice with only your name on it for those later changes. If you and your workplace worked on the library from 2018 to 2020 and you continued on your own in 2020, the copyright notices at the top of the file(s) could look ...


3

Let me start by saying that the nice thing to do, is to inform the authors of the research paper that you're creating software that implements the technique they described. They might be very happy to see that their work was useful. You might even get help (or contributions) from them, especially if you release your code as open source. Now for the legal ...


3

As always, this depends on what is considered a derivative work, which is a legal question rather than a licensing one. If I have a substantial notebook which is 99% code and is clearly tightly coupled with the libraries it is using, then that is almost certainly a derivative work of the code. If I have a notebook which is 99% documentation and just contains ...


2

No, you don't. The AGPL Section 13 only requires you to publish the sourcecode of an AGPL-licensed program if you "modify the program". When you host an AGPL-licensed software as-is, then you have no further obligations. And even if you were modifying min.io, that provision only applies to "users interacting with it remotely through a computer ...


2

Here is the question: Is the mere change of the version of the dependency a modification of DDep_v1 that makes it a 'Derivative Work' with all its implications (notice of modification, etc)? I am not sure if you are creating a derivative work from a purely legal standpoint, but from a practical perspective, I would treat your modification as if it is. From ...


2

You have to use the GNU GPL version 2 or later. A theme or plugin is a derivative work of WordPress because it uses WordPress functions, hooks, etc. But this doesn't prevent you from selling your plugin! You are free to require a payment to get the plugin, but it has to be under the GNU GPL version 2 or later.


1

A transcription into another language is usually considered a derivative work. So the programme in the new language must choose a license compatible with the original programme, IFF it is a re-implementation where the developers use the existing code as reference. You may choose any license, if you never looked at the other programme's sources and just re-...


1

In addition to other answers. Some Open Source licenses do impose conditions and obligations regarding output work. But you can't really generalize all Open Source licenses on this matter. For example GPLv3 explicitly states that The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered ...


1

what if some of the third-party libraries I use are released under some open source licence but which is not totally compatible with GPL3? License compatibility is very black-and-white. Either a license is compatible with the GPLv3 or it is not. There is no such thing as "partially compatible". To give some piece of mind, the MIT and BSD licenses ...


1

If your installer/builder just takes the build script of the distro as input and it can work with any build script (i.e., your installer/builder does not contain knowledge that is specific to the build script of a particular distro and that can only be learned from looking at GPL-licensed code), then your installer/builder is an independent work as far as ...


1

The requirements of the GPL are fairly simple: Any modifications, enhancements or additional modules must be licensed under the GPL (and use only code under a GPL-compatible license). Anyone who receives a copy of the application code has the right to receive the source code. This source code will be distributed under the terms and conditions of the GPL ...


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