We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
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 ...


7

The GPL FAQ addresses the issue of "mere aggregation", when it writes An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are nonfree or GPL-incompatible. I see no reason why ...


4

There can be no such free licence, because the distribution of unmodified and modified copies are two of the four freedoms of free software (the OSI definition protects those rights similarly). Assuming by copyleft you mean a licence that requires derivative works to be under the same licence, CC's BY-NC licence allows distribution "for NonCommercial ...


4

Nothing in the GPL or LGPL, whether version 2 or 3, requires you to offer object files of any kind whatsoever. Instead, both versions of both licenses impose conditions on distributing object files, under the assumption that you already wanted to distribute object files in the first place. When distributing object files, you are expected to provide the ...


3

Your questions are a bit fuzzy in some points but I'll try my best to clarify all of them. First off all your title question How to donate a complete working project to the open source comunity? In most jurisdictions, donating is considered as a form of gift for a specific purpose. For example you can donate books to a local charity or donate money to a ...


3

To paraphrase the quote from the FSF given in the answer by JNic: The license of the interpreter itself is of no concern. The interpreter and the software executed by it are independent works as far as copyright is concerned and their licenses don't affect each other. If you want to keep your application proprietary, you cannot use any GPL-licensed library ...


2

The Free Software Foundation has the answer to your question: When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way ...


2

This would not be a free license. However, you can choose the GNU GPL which will allow redistribution, but it has to stay open source.


2

If you are the sole copyright holder to "My Software", then any license allows you to do as you propose. What any open-source license also allows is that anyone can take your open-source version, remove the adds and then publish the modified version again. If that is not acceptable, then you should not use an open-source license and the rest of the ...


2

Suppose I wanted to sell a pre-configured device with a FOSS OS, some Apache 2.0 and MIT licensed programs and own compiled source code along with the system to a customer. Do I then have to disclose my source code to customers, according to the GPL? No, you do not have to disclose your source code to your customers, assuming your own application does not ...


1

The GPL and other copyleft licenses allow further distribution (under the same terms), they can't force anybody to distribute any changes they do in-house (as I understand what the relevant copyright laws say). They are crafted to ensure the code is always distributed so the recipient can use, study and change it at will.


1

I don't know with enough confidence what the situation is with regard to the students. When it comes to employees of the organization, when they are provided with a copy of (L)GPL-licensed software, with the understanding that that software is provided to them so they can perform their duties on behalf of the organization, then that software is considered to ...


1

When the main program is combined with the GPL-covered plugin, the software as a whole would be covered by the GPL. Since you're using the MIT license for your main program, this is perfectly possible: the MIT is a GPL-compatible license. However, you will also have to pay attention with other dependencies, e.g. Apache-2.0 is not compatible with GPL-2.0. It ...


1

It depends on the license itself. Some OSS licenses allow you to just mention or attribute the license (Creative Commons being one of them), which would be as simple as putting a badge in your readme or just putting a "This software licensed under X license" at the bottom of the document), other licenses require the exact license terms to be ...


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