7

If you're okay with people publishing your code as their own apps, then you the tool you want to use is a trademark, rather than a crayon copyright license. Lots of projects allow their code to be used freely, but the name, logos, and other branding cannot be. Trademark law also assists you for people who haven't used any of your code but are trying to make ...


7

It depends how you are using this GPL library. If you are calling functions from this library in your code, then in general the GPL would apply to the calling code and therefore your calling code would be subject to the GPL terms, including source code redistribution per this answer: For Copyleft licenses, how (proprietary- or non-Copyleft- licensed) ...


7

The GPL does not prevent you from including ads. However: since you have to publish the GPL code of the app, you cannot prevent someone else from forking your code, removing the ads, and publishing as well. Which of the two versions are users likely to prefer: the ad-supported or the ad-free version, if both are free? Since many users find that ads degrade ...


6

Say --entirely hypothetically-- that you have created a successful Android app such as https://github.com/ankidroid ... ;) You have built not only a decent user base but also there are several contributors that help further the code on a regular basis. Until now you may have been continuing to handle the actual releases on app stores. You want to pass the ...


5

Basically, non-free software and GPL software can be "combined" if the combination forms an aggregate instead of being a single software deriving from the two. This is mentioned in section 5 of GPL v3: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not ...


4

Technically it might be allowed, but only if you distribute your application by email. While email isn't a generally allowed form of source code distribution, using the same distribution method for both binaries and source is allowed. The logic is simple: if you emailed the binaries, the customer obviously has email, so you may rely on further email ...


2

The question could boil down to IMHO: Can I reuse copyrighted media in some FOSS software? The key point is to determine whether or not you are authorized in general to do so. I assume you mean that this app is likely open source itself but it does not matter much. The format of the media does not matter either (it could be a Gif, mp4 or else). And ...


2

The API (and only the API) is under the Apache v2 License, so you can use that under its terms which includes commercial usage; that doesn't make google's TTS open-source though. Actual access to the API and services requires agreement to further terms from google which are described in the documentation and when signing up for / signing-in to a google ...


1

If you were making a gaming device and side-loaded Sony apps from APKmirror, how do you think that would turn out? Doing similar with Google apps, for which you don't have written permission to redistribute, could easily turn out the same way. The risk you run is: you will likely get sued (especially if you company/product is successful, or even if your ...


1

If you are using GPL-licensed code in your app, then it is very difficult to effectively monetize it by asking a payment per copy. The reason for this is that the GPL not only requires that you provide your source code, but also that every user of your app gets the right to re-publish it with or without modification and for any price they want to ask for it, ...


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