Hot answers tagged

11

A practical example of the difference between software and patent licenses is FFmpeg. FFmpeg has support for many audiovisual codecs, many of which are covered by software patents in some countries. If you were to obtain a copy of the source code of FFmpeg and you were somewhere without software patents, like say Antarctica, then you could use it completely ...


7

Eclipse has it's own license, the Eclipse Public License. It's very difficult to find, but you can find this in Section 29 here: Many Eclipse tools and wizards use code templates which are included in the application that is generated. Is the code generated by these tools considered a derivative work that must be licensed under the EPL? Unfortunately,...


5

At a high level, this question is about how licensing flows between pieces of code. Let's assume here a grossly simplified view that calling GPL-licensed code means that the copyleft applies to the calling code. (Things are much more nuanced in practice.) Case 1. Non-GPL-licensed code calling GPL-licensed code Under my simplifying assumption, calling GPL-...


4

Since your project's just written in Clojure, it doesn't modify the Clojure compiler or runtime system, you can simply license your project under the GPLv3. You would only need to worry about Clojure's license if you were distributing the Clojure compiler/runtime itself or code which modified or integrated into it to a greater extent than merely running on ...


4

As you point out, the EDLv1 is BSD-like (in fact, it's a copy of 3-clause BSD with names changed in clause 3 and the disclaimer), so your rights and obligations are pretty simply stated in clauses one and two. IANAL/IANYL, but it seems to me that you may use modified mosquito within your organisation, and you may sell it without, and in neither case will ...


4

The GNU Project lists the EPL as a GPL-incompatible license which means that you cannot take EPL-licensed code and combine it in the same work as a GPL-licensed work. However, since you are the author of the GPL work in question, you may license your work under the GPLv3 with exceptions. Section 7 of the GPLv3 allows you, the author, to introduce additional ...


3

Assuming that the communication between all the EPL and GPL-licensed components is done over Cypher calls via REST APIs, then these are independent programs. Both side could eventually use any license without impacting what the license of the API caller would be. If you were making function calls the situation could be different. As you describe it, each ...


3

The wizard itself doesn't determine if the output is covered by a license. The input determines copyright law and FLOSS licensing. For example, if you import a nondescript WSDL into Eclipse to generate a client, that client isn't subject to the Eclipse license or even copyright law (by itself). The entire work resulting from the use of that client could be ...


2

I would suggest to put the license of your plugin to the root. This way Gitlab displays the correct license and everyone knows directly the license of your plugin. For 3rd party libs or data I would suggest to create appropriated sub-directories and put the licenses next to them in the same directory.


2

I think the safest choice is to just follow the GNU guidelines[1], and license the Clojure code under GPL 3+ with an additional Clojure permission. At least, that's what I do for my projects (albeit with the AGPL3+)... I even helped writing a Leiningen template[2] that does just that for the GPL3+ :-) In case you prefer using the AGPL3+, the procedure is ...


2

If I understand the context correctly, I used the Eclipse IDE to create a Java project and used Eclipse's "Runnable JAR File Exporter" to export my project as a self-runnable Jar. As a result of this process, the exported Jar contains both my own original code and additional Eclipse binary code injected by Eclipse to support the self running feature. The ...


2

I wrote a letter to the Eclipse Foundation. The consultant pointed me to point 5 in their FAQ. My case falls under the term "linking". He warned that he isn't a lawyer, but offered the following short answer: The Eclipse Foundation does not consider linking with EPL content to be a derivative work and so you are not required to disclose your source code.


2

The EPL isn't a copyleft license. The EPL license doesn't claim to apply to program modules that are linked to the EPL code. You can choose any compatible license you like for your own code. The Apache and MIT licenses are both compatible with the EPL, but the GPL isn't.


1

Say for instance you use either the proprietary Microsoft Office or the FOSS LibreOffice. Can you read any document regardless of the document license (some of which have a CC license, some GPL, some MIT, some confidential/proprietary) and process and print it? Yes, sure! And will this impact the licensing of the proprietary Microsoft Office or the ...


1

Here is the skinny of how I understand patents and copyrights as a programmer: copyright == how the code is written patent == what the code does Copyright is for the code itself as an expression of instructions "fixed on some tangible medium" say a file on disk or a piece of paper. This is about how the code is organized and written. Copyright protection ...


1

I thought code can only be copyrighted, not patented? That would be the misunderstanding. It is more generally agreed that algorithms can't be patented, but (sadly) various jurisdictions allow patents on inventions implemented entirely in sofware to varying degrees, and similarly to varying degrees on business methods, if such are implemented in the ...


1

I'm using LGPL binaries, as well as EPL binaries for my open source project. Is this OK? Yes. And if yes, does that mean I should license my project under LGPL? The binaries are being used as dependencies for the project i.e. I'm just using them as-is without making changes to them. No: this is common for Java-based project to depend and re-use as-is ...


1

I find using the words "purely functional" very odd, it already has an established and very specific meaning. "Trivial" would be a better word. If some nontrivial code is already present in a program and you take and modify it (with a wizard or otherwise), it's better to treat it as a derivative work. You should check if they have any exception for it, and ...


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