53
The GPL gives you a few options for how to distribute source code. Typically, you distribute source at the time you distribute the binary. However, section 3(b) of the GPLv2 allows you to distribute a work based on another GPL-licensed work, in binary form, as long as you also
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any ...
47
The Free Software Foundation thinks not. From the GPL FAQ:
If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL give the thief the right to redistribute that version?
If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if the thief is ...
40
There is no requirement whatsoever in any version of the GPL to maintain a reference to some upstream project. Imagine if you use substantial code from multiple GPL-licensed projects: the GitHub website only allows one "upstream" pointer anyway.
GitHub's upstream link is only a helpful reference and is unrelated to any license requirements.
34
The usual caveat: IANAL/IANYL. That said, a statement of intent is not usually considered a binding undertaking, and stolen goods are stolen goods.
A licence does not inhere in software, it is associated with it through the act of conveyance (as defined in GNU GPL v3). One receives a piece of code under GPLv3, or MIT, or CDDL, or whatever licence it is ...
23
Assuming that the original work was distributed under the GNU GPLv2, and that you have made a work which is a derivative of it (in copyright terms), you may redistribute your derivative work subject to GPLv2 ss 2 and 3.
The point of distributing under the GPL is to enable a work to continue to be used and/or repurposed by as large a number of people as ...
20
The Berne Convention on copyright specifies the Right to Quote as an exception to copyright.
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including ...
17
If by
I've been asked to make an application
you mean that you were hired to create an application, the answer to your question depends on the contract you have with your employer (if you work for a company) or customer (if you are a freelancer).
If you are an employee, generally your employer owns all of the work you produce for them. In this case you do ...
16
I think the problem here is at a more fundamental level than the GPL.
The GPL does not force you to publish your code under the GPL. It is still the right of the copyright holder to decide whether the software shall be published at all. But if the software is published, it can only be under the GPL.
The intruder never lawfully obtained a license to the GPL ...
16
The question you need to be asking here is whether the picture/screen recording is a derivative work of the copyrighted material or not. In general, the answer to this is "no" (and this is independent of license) - a program compiled with gcc is not a derivative work of gcc, and a document created with Microsoft Word is not a derivative work of Microsoft ...
16
GPLv2 is clear about this: I have to release the whole program as
GPLv2 if I want to distribute it.
That would be the FSF's position, at least.
It is clear that if I don't, I am subject to lawsuits because I
violated the GPL license.
You are always subject to lawsuits. In this particular case, however, there is a reasonably high risk that a court would ...
13
This question was already asked on Stackoverflow in 2008 (but closed as off-topic there). This is a copy of the answer by Will M:
Here is a short list of some the major differences:
internationalization: they used new terminology, rather than using language tied to US legal concepts
patents: they specifically address patents (including the ...
13
If it is your program (and not a derivative of somebody else's program, or something that a lot of other people has contributed to), you have the full right to do whatever you like. So just create a new distribution and state that this distro is under "GNU GPL version 3", replace LICENSE.txt and edit any copyright notices to refer to the correct license - ...
13
(Here's my best guess. This is obviously a very hairy problem to work through, and I've tried my best to reduce the problem down to basic principles. However, I may gotten some of those basic principles incorrect. It should go without saying that this is not legal advice.)
The Apache License 2.0 (APL) is incompatible with the GPLv2 simply because of the ...
13
This is covered in section 3 of the GPL, version 2:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which ...
13
Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.
No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and ...
13
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3. The FSF says of v2 and v3 compatibility:
Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination.
If ...
12
The GPL does not forbid you from using GPL'ed software. It requires something far more specific: if you modify the GPL'ed software and publish your modifications, then you can only publish under the terms of the GPL.
The question here is whether some use of Git would count as modification, and whether it counts as publishing. Different GPL versions ...
12
Just adding another take on the question, hopefully to complement D. SM's excellent answer. You say that you're writing an application and you want to use a GPLv2 library in it. You fully understand this will mean releasing the entire program you write under GPLv2, and honouring the licence (providing source to anyone to whom you provide the binaries, etc.)...
12
As I understand it, you choose these files because they they contain the characteristics you want to test against and they are conveniently already available. But otherwise, you could use any file at all (with the right characteristics) in your test.
That is an indication that those files are just input data for your filter and that your filter does not ...
answered Dec 14 '20 at 7:28
Bart van Ingen Schenau
17.9k1 gold badge28 silver badges50 bronze badges
11
The other answers are good but don't acknowledge another consideration that bears mentioning:
You state in your question you've written a program, but if you've ever assimilated contributions from other people into your program, relicensing becomes more tricky.
Broadly, you may not have the licence to license their work under another licence.
I can't ...
11
Yes. The terms are described in the GPLv2 license (emphasis mine):
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source ...
answered Sep 23 '16 at 17:25
Glenn Randers-Pehrson
3,6212 gold badges13 silver badges28 bronze badges
10
Another important consideration is whether you have accepted any contributions from other people into your project.
If anyone has submitted a pull request, and you have pulled in their changes (either to fix bugs, or add enhancements) but didn't get them to sign a Contributor Licence Agreement, then they hold copyright on part of your code, and you will ...
9
The jury is still out on this one.
The traditional interpretation, and the one intended by the Free Software Foundation(FSF, publishers of the GPL), is that no, you can't do this. This position seems to have broad support. Both parts of your question are dealt with in the GPL FAQ.
The first, if it "counts" if you link dynamically has it's own section in ...
9
To the best of my knowledge Hotspot and most of the JVM code (mostly C/C++ native code) in the OpenJDK is released under the GPL 2.0 with Assembly Exception and not a "bare" GPL. This is in addition to the Classpath exception to the GPL that applies mostly to the runtime library code.
The links I provided here are for OpenJDK 7, but there has not ...
9
You have to make the source code available in some form if you publish the program. If you never publish it, you have no obligations whatsoever.
If you publish, you have (in theory) three possibilities:
If there is a commercial distributor of the software, you can point everyone to that distributor to get the source code. This doesn't apply in your case, ...
8
Yes. It is always stated, that if you change an GPLed program but use it only internal without releasing any distribution, you have not to put your changes under GPL. That is covered by the GPL-FAQ, a question on Stackoverflow and a question on programmers.SE.
8
According to the GPL FAQ the output of a GPL program is not licensed under the GNU GPL, unless it copies substantial parts of sourcecode into the output which are complex enough to fall under copyright:
Q:In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?
A: Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.
8
Yes, you can.
The authors of the software allow you to receive the software under the GPLv2, GPLv3, or any future higher version of the GPL at your choice.
If you choose to receive it under the GPLv2, you are only bound to the GPLv2, and are under no requirement to release it under any later version.
Paragraph 6 in the GPLv2 (the one that tells you you ...
8
One of the main differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is the so called "anti Tivoization clause", meant to prevent "Tivoization". From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html:
Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software ...
8
Apple is generally very good at being on the verge of legality regarding open source / free software. And they have enough lawyers so that I would be really surprised if one found a clear violation.
You might be aware that section 2b that you cite talks about derivative works but does not prevent "mere aggregation" in a collection of software. It could very ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
