Hot answers tagged

47

Yes, what is being done on that fork is entirely legal. However, you are also allowed to take the useful changes (like the translation) and incorporate them in your own fork. Then you can advertise it as the ad-free version that users might like better.


8

The short answer is that, for my money, it's not. I agree with you that for GNU Coreutils, this is a s6d conveyance. I haven't followed the links that start at Docker Hub and flow through GitHub all the way, but I've already found a bunch of build tools, and I suspect they do end up pointing to the actual sources. Whether this chain of frangible links ...


8

It is unfortunately fairly common for companies to overstate the restrictions of the AGPL. But as the AGPL states, additional restrictions can be removed. This answer is primarily based on the GPLv3 CommunityServer license you linked. But aside from the GPLv3 vs AGPLv3 point, the analysis is identical for the AGPLv3-covered DocumentServer which contains the ...


8

IANAL, but I believe this is legal within GPLv3. That is why there exists Affero General Public License (AGPLv3) license. This will force them to share any source code changes if running it on a web server (e.g. if software/scripts not run locally on client).


8

If I download that plugins from another website for free, can I use it for my small business for free legally? The terms and conditions page of WooCommerce states that the products themselves are licensed under the GPLv2 (or later) license. This license gives anyone who obtained a (legal) copy of the software the right to legally re-distribute the software ...


5

Files that are read as data by the application (i.e. the files may unlock/trigger behavior, but they don't add new behavior or code) are considered independent works of authorship. This means that those files are not affected by the copyright license of the application. It is not needed that the data files reside in a different directory as the application ...


5

Licences don't inhere in software, they attach to software during the act of conveyance. If you received a chunk of code under LGPL, you may use it under those terms regardless of any other licence under which parts of it may have already been published. LGPL normally requires modified versions to be published under LGPL. But as apsillers notes above, ...


5

You aren't required to make code public - but you are required to make code and all changes available to anyone that you distribute binaries, etc. to. So supplying source on request of only the people/groups that you have licensed your program to is OK and permissible. Not sure on GPL3, but for GPL2 it is even permissible to have the recipient make a ...


4

Won't work, because you can't legally call it the GPL; see eg the GPL FAQ: You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name The practical upshot is that only the FSF can issue versions of the GPL. The resulting configure would be a derivative work of a GPLv2+ licensed file, ...


4

1.Can I use the lib APIs in my code and then license my code under my own terms? Yes, as long as your license does not forbid users of the code/device to replace the LGPL library with a different version. 2.What is the deal with static linking and dynamic linking of this lib? The LGPL requires that it must be possible to replace the LGPL code with a ...


3

Yes, the way you show is exactly how the copyright notice should look like. You might want to give date ranges, if applicable, like Copyright 1993 - 2001 the other Copyright 2019 - 2020 Me Copyright belongs to all people who contributed to the content of the file, each to what was individually written. That in turn means that you should add your copyright ...


3

All free / open source software can be sold. If you're distributing GPL software then you have to make the source code available to those who receive it. If your code is merely running in a VBox instance then you won't be bound by VBox' license, though if you use other free software libraries make sure you follow their licenses too. With VirtualBox the one ...


3

There usually is a simple way to do so with open source projects: Create a clone of the repository of the project. If it doesn't exist, create a repository and import the version you start with into it. Make the modifications you want and commit them with meaningful commit messages. Make an amendment to the readme that states your contribution. That can be ...


3

Adding to other existing answers, if your goal is to completely forbid others to monetize your project (offering the Program as a Service) without disclosing their source, SSPL (Server Side Public License) was created by the MongoDB team specifically for this purpose. Note: It is relatively new, whether it's enforceable or not is debatable. Do not call ...


3

Wordpress plugins must be available under the same license as Wordpress: GPLv2 or later. That in turn means any software that you use in the plugin must use a compatible license. The LGPL is a highly compatible variant of the GPL. To determine exact compatibility we can look at the compatibility matrix in the GPL FAQ. For the combination “I want to use a ...


3

Can I [show ads] or [sell my software for money]? Yes. See GPL FAQ - Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? You can also show ads, but remember that the GPL requires you to publish source. So if a customer does not like the fact that you show ads, she is allowed to recompile your app without that feature enabled. Or she is allowed ...


2

No, you may not. If you were to change the licence, that would constitute a modification. The AGPLv3 is clear about modified versions; in s5 it says that you may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these ...


2

You can use any GPL-licensed software for any purpose you like - on he condition that you follow the license. This means you even have permission to use it in scams and software of dubious usage and moral standing, too. In my understanding, on Android the term "module" usually refers to what commonly is referred to as library and not just an independent ...


2

The GPL requires you to provide the source code of a program if: you give someone else a copy of that program, and the program includes GPL-covered code Then, the entire source code for the program must be provided so that other people can make their own versions, and the program as a whole must be licensed under the GPL. However, individual components ...


2

Yes, you may perform this combination, and the works technically retain their respective GPL/AGPL licenses. However, your concern that the combination may "have to be released as AGPL too" has some truth to it: the AGPL requirement to share source over a network does indeed apply to the combination. This is explicitly handled in section 13 of the GPLv3 (and ...


2

Note that while monetizing itself is legal, the project that is based on a GPL software must (obviously) comply with GPL: Any browser-side source code (which is distributed to users) has to be released under the same license All copyright notices (e.g. Copyright (c) 2019 Hunter Parcells) in such files must be preserved, with additional copyright notices in ...


1

You are free to publish your own software under MIT, as long as it doesn't include any GPL-covered components. Wordpress themes and plugins do not have to be GPL-licensed, the must merely have a GPL-compatible license. MIT is GPL-compatible.


1

No, as long as you do not release the source code or the binary to them, you are not required to release any source code. However there is another license - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License which DOES require you to do that and was written explicitly with that in mind. In short: GPL 3 does NOT require you to give source code for ...


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