3

As no (copyrightable) part of the generator makes it into the output, the license on the generator code does not affect the license of the output in any way. The license on the templates is a different matter. As much of the content of the template does make it into the output, the output is legally a derived work of the template used to generate it. That ...


2

There would be an official distribution (build) of software using icons with permission for private use without redistribution license, but one could build their own fork or build of software, but would have to use their own image resources. Is a concept like this compatible with GPLv3 or would this not work out? As the icons and the software are most ...


2

Yes, such thing is possible - how exactly depends on a few conditions: If you are the sole owner of copyright, you can do as you want anyway and you need to exercise little care on how you bundle and ship code and ressources (icons). If the code is GPL-covered and other authors also have copyright, it is good and established practise to separate code and ...


2

Would it be possible to release the generator's source code (generator logic + templates) under say GPLv3 without having the generated code to be GPLv3 licensed too? Yes of course. But this is a legal question and I am not a lawyer Typical examples include: C preprocessors : GNU cpp (part of GCC) is GPLv3+ licensed, but not its output (which is valid C ...


2

There are a few options you can use for code of your program that gets copied into the output: You can license that code under a different, GPL-compatible, license. This would then typically be a more permissive license and it would allow using that code also in a closed-source competitor application. If you choose this, you need to mark clearly in your ...


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

It will be more like having two licenses. One that you grant only to a specific group of people.


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