3

In this particular scenario, I've decided this is not a good idea. The reason for this is that I still need the terms of the open-source license to ensure the work can be downloaded, modified, and redistributed under FOSS terms. I can't just want to distribute it the same way and then say "... but it's not under those terms though!". The real ...


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

The AGPL does not allow this for what copyright law considers to be a single work. If any part of the work is licensed under the AGPL, then the AGPL requires that the entire work is distributed under the terms of the AGPL. However, it is not a given that a game engine and the assets of the game are a single work under copyright law. If the game can function ...


2

Can I, however, distribute bar under a license that says something along the lines of "Bar is distributed under the GPLv3, with the following exception: a non-source form of this work is under TFL". Not meaningfully. GPLv3 s6 says that "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5", and s5c ...


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 ...


2

I would suggest designing the software so as to allow a user to supply a set of icons, and include with it a set of functional (but not necessarily attractive) icons that you would allow to be freely distributable under GPL, and bundle it with an alternate set of icons which is explicitly not part of the GPL-licensed package, but which users may load into it....


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 ...


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