9

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 name suggests -- a socially aggressive move. So long as people have disagreements about the management of open source projects, we will continue to have ...


7

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 under the Apache 2 license. While Apache 2 and LGPLv3 are compatible, license compatibility is a one-way street: you can include Apache 2 licensed code in a ...


7

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 considered as "derivative work" thus oblige me to license my code with AGPL too? No. A derivative work is only possible if you've copied at least some part of the ...


4

These terms looks very much like GitHub's terms of service; compare with their section d, subsection 5: Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your ...


4

I want to license them in a way that prevents others from publishing derivative works under completely different names in order to make sure that they stay visibly connected to my original work. This seems to me to be a confusing and ineffective way to accomplish this goal. Suppose you name your software "Foobaz" and license it in the way you describe. ...


4

Is ripping off an open source library okay? Yes, absolutely. Copying an open source library, even if you make no changes, or only make trivial changes, is completely OK as long you follow the requirements of that library's license. In the example you have highlighted (SAConfettiView vs. SwiftConfettiView), the author of the fork (SwiftConfettiView) has ...


3

Many licenses consist of two parts: the license terms, and the license notice where the copyright holders actually grant the license. The Apache license suggests a specific text for this notice. Here, the upstream software contains only the license terms and metadata about the license, but not the actual notice. This complicates downstream use, but since ...


3

This may be possible. For the purpose of this answer I'll assume that the BSD-3 covered software was written by third parties and does not share any copyright holders. The 3-clause BSD license makes three requirements: for source code: license and copyright notices must be kept intact for binaries: the notices must be provided in the documentation or other ...


3

The copyright line is a statement of who owns the copyrights on that part of the project. When you add a new file to a project, the copyrights belong to you (or your employer if you created the file as part of your work) and the copyright line should reflect that. When you make significant creative changes to an existing file, the you (or again your ...


2

Currently, M doesn't have a valid license. By removing the license information when the copy was made the author of M violated your copyrights. You are fully within your rights to request from the author of M to restore the copyright/license information as it existed at the time of the copy. When the license violation of M has been rectified, you can take ...


2

I believe requiring .js files is definitely a dynamic linking. It's not much different from linking a library in your project for the use of library's functionality, which would be considered using the library as a plugin by GPL: Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work....


2

The AGPL does not define the term “user”, but context makes it clear (to me) that this means persons, in particular natural persons that are end users, or other third parties. As Brandin points out in the comments, the precise definition of users is not that important. The AGPL's requirement to offer the source of a modified version effectively triggers as ...


1

The AGPL requires source-sharing only when someone interacts with a service that is based on AGPL-licensed code (or, when you physically distribute work that includes AGPL-licensed code). If no end users interact with your test-enabled version of the service that includes AGPL-licensed code, then there is no one to whom you are required to send the source ...


1

Exactly how should I change that statement now that I am technically the author but (a) need to acknowledege that I derived this code from existing code of another author, and (b) meet the terms of license? Actually, you are not the author of the file. You are one of the authors, because multiple authors have now made changes to the file. You must leave ...


1

OpenJDK is GPL-licensed software (GPLv2 with Classpath Exception). You are free to modify this Java implementation, such as by translating the keywords. However, “Java” is a trademark that you are not allowed to use. You do not have to rename all classes or packages in OpenJDK, but you must not call the resulting language “Java”.


1

The goal of GPL-style licenses is to ensure end user freedom. For the GPL, anyone who receives a copy of the software also receives the full rights under the GPL. But with network-based software, this no longer works: the end user never receives a copy of the software they are using. The AGPL steps in here: it ensures end user freedom also when the user is ...


1

Loks OK to me. Note that this is only relevant if you want to distribute said LaTeX files further. In which case consider carefully if your changes might benefit others, and contribute them to upstream. If not (or your changes aren't accepted), perhaps you can get the same results by e.g. overriding some part of the original in an extra file, or just define ...


1

They published their css on github under a MIT License in 2018. They mention the repo here.


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