14

Selling licence exceptions, usually to copyleft licences, is a perfectly normal (though arguably somewhat distasteful) practice. Provided the developer is the sole rightsholder in the package, or has some other lawful means to re-license (eg CTA, or CLA that permits this, on all contributions) then this is a perfectly lawful thing to do.. The licence ...


12

Am I right assuming that the AGPL and GPLv3 are compatible? Yes, you can combine them, with the combination effectively being governed by the AGPL v3 license: GPL v3 section 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed ...


10

I've paid for an alternate license for a software package before, and here's more or less what happens (disclaimer: it's been a while and I'm doing this from memory). The alternate license covers the source code that you receive, but that license is not the entirety of your agreement with the developer. There's also a contract that covers the remaining ...


5

If you accepted contributions from third parties, their contributions belong to them and you can't change licensing terms on them. They might not even have made their contributions legally available at all... That is why most projects insist on some sort of agreement that any contributions are (a) legal to make (i.e., no code pilfered from a third party, no ...


4

The LGPL ensures that the library will always remain under the LGPL. Since you are not the sole copyright holder, you cannot relicense the library under a different license. However, this does not prevent linking the LGPL-covered library with a proprietary library, which is then sold. It is also permissible to bundle the LGPL library with the proprietary ...


4

The term "dual licensing" describes the situation where the entire repository is available under two (or more) licenses and the user gets to choose which license terms they want to comply to. What you have, based on your comments, is different in that you have different licenses that apply to different parts of the repository. This is not very ...


4

Firstly, dual-licensing is fine and uncontentious: as long as you own all the copyrights in this codebase, you can offer it to different recipients under different licences without issue. Note this will require not accepting community contributions, or only doing so when a suitable Contributor Licensing Agreement, or a Copyright Transfer Agreement, is in ...


4

GPLv3 s7 is clear about permissible additional restrictions that can be applied to GPLv3. I would argue that your clause is in fact a restriction, because it restricts people from conveying their modifications under pure-GPLv3, and thus can be ignored by any recipients of the fork, under GPLv3 s10. If you edit your requirement into the licence to make it ...


2

With what you have done so far, you are nearly there. Without including a full verbose text of license, You don't need to include a copy of the GPL license in your own license file, but you should have a copy of it in the FreeFont subdirectory What should I tell users of the template system? The only thing missing from your "tutorial" is a link to ...


2

if someone goes ahead and pays this one-time fee to purchase a MIT license to gain access to code which is otherwise available through GPlv3, what's to stop them from uploading the MIT version to Github with the MIT license attached. Wouldn't that be within their rights and perfectly legal? Yes. The MIT license is clear that you can do whatever you like so ...


2

The OP having considerably clarified the question, I'm rewriting my answer. Bob receives some software from Alice under GPLv2+, and chooses to redistribute it under GPLv3. You want to know if Bob has now lost his right to use the software under GPLv2. He has not. He was given the choice about which terms he could receive the software under, and until he ...


2

You are right that if you modify the license notices to remove the reference to GPLv2, then you lose the right to use and distribute the software under that license. However, I don't believe you lose all rights to the software. You still have the rights granted to you under the GPLv3 (which you effectively got under the "or later" part of the ...


2

The question you have to ask yourself is "what makes the game unique?". Most games are a combination of code (the actual programme) and art assets (graphics, music, sound...). They do not necessarily need to form a single entitiy, but can be licensed differently. Another thing to mind, besides the license, is the name of the game. If you want to be ...


1

Dual licensing GPL and a commercial license might make sense. People can use the software in open source projects free of charge, but have to pay for a commercial license to use the software in proprietary projects.


1

Nobody has to pay for the MIT licensed version. As the text of the MIT license says: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, ...


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