76

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 ...


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 ...


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'...


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 ...


7

Making your software available under free and open source terms means the legal terms under which you make your software available meet certain standards (namely, the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI's Open Source Definition). Those definitions allow commercial reuse/distribution, so any legal terms that don't allow commercial reuse will not fall within the ...


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 ...


6

From one of your comments: I just checked and they don't even list a license in their repo In that case, you have no right to use the code from that module. Try and forget everything you've seen of their code and implement the function on your own.


5

No. But maybe. The GPL applies to all derivative works as a whole. When you modify some code, that is a derivative work and has to be GPL-licensed. However, if you can clearly identify parts that are not derivative but entirely your creation, then you can license those parts under any other license as well, including Apache-2. It is in theory possible that ...


5

Yes, you can change both the name of the project and the name of the executable. The 3-clause BSD license gives you permission to make changes to the project and that includes the changes you want to make. Additionally, if you fork a project with the intention of maintaining it as a separate, independent project, then it is recommended to change the ...


3

It's easy to argue that extensions are "covered works", or "works based on the program", so if any ambiguities exist, my application will be less attractive. Is it reasonable to release my own version of the GPL with an alternative definition of "covered works"? No, do not do that. There are already too many open-source license ...


3

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 ...


3

This is an interesting question, because you are mixing code copyright and copyright of articles and facts, which work quite different. The easiest parts are the facts. A mathematical proof is something that deserves academic acknowledgement, but no copyright, as it just states facts and facts cannot be copyrighted. Describing the proof may warrant copyright....


3

There are two questions here. Firstly, can you extract a subset of a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 database and distribute it on the web, and secondly, can you use that subset to inform the decisions of a piece of software with which others interact. You have the added complication that you're asking about the German language version of the licence; I'm assuming that it ...


2

Ditto what Basile Starynkevitch posted, I believe that there are some cases where reverse engineering or de-compiling are legit for research and education. The DMCA is the document that you probably would want to look at for more details on what is and isn't allowed. I suspect the legality of this is largely going to depend on what the copier is doing with ...


2

Standard disclaimer: IANAL, as such this is not legal advice. The case is actually not clear cut. In my opinion there are two different works here: the design of the template, and the code behind the design of the template. The code does not actually make it into the final output PDF, so the GPL is not actually relevant. The template is what makes it less ...


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

Yes, there is a difference. If you mention a dependency in package.json (or a similar file that gets used by a mackage manager), you only need to have the right to download & use the dependency, not the right to redistribute it. That latter right is usually not granted for proprietary software. you can automatically get the latest released version of ...


2

Yes, the license applies to the header as well. The easiest way to satisfy the license terms is to copy the project's MIT license directly into a comment block in your modified header file. You only have to include the license notice, but are not required to publish your modifications or your dotfiles under the MIT license.


1

I'm developing a simulation engine and development framework. Most operating systems (e.g. Linux, Windows, ...) and language implementations provide a way to accept plugins. On Linux with C code that means using dlopen(3). A good example is the recent GCC compiler, or the Firefox browser. You could implement a plugin mechanism in your simulation engine. ...


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

As far as I understand (IANAL, IANYL, I don't impersonate one on SE either), the MIT license doesn't allow "... even though you legally claimed ownership of the code (as explicitly permitted by the MIT license),..." First, the owner of the code is the author(s) (or, if written under contract for somebody else, who hired them). They can transfer their rights ...


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

I agree with Philippe. However you should note, that newer OJDBC drivers (since 19.6) are under FUTC license according to: https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/appdev/jdbc-ucp-19-7-c-downloads.html This is a non-clickthrough license. Therefore the artefacts are also available in public repositories (in contrast to the removed older versions). E.g. ...


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