Hot answers tagged

50

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 ...


39

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 ...


17

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, ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


12

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 ...


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 ...


10

(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 ...


10

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 ...


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 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 ...


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

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 been ...


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 ...


8

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, ...


7

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.


7

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.


7

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 ...


7

Having read the original page (and as a side-note it would be helpful if you were to provide links in your questions), what is going on is not a licence violation, but dual licensing. They say Cheerp is distributed as a Free and Open Source Software under the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License (core compiler) and under the GNU General Public ...


7

Such a licensing term is incompatible with the definitions of free software and open source software, which may not discriminate against persons or groups to use, modify, or share the software. For your own software (either completely original or based on permissively licensed software), it is legally possible to add such a term to your license. For ...


7

Not directly an answer to your question, but if you want a fork that doesn't reference the parent, you should import the repo instead: https://github.com/new/import Note that you will only get the code and not the wiki, settings, etc this way, as if this repo doesn't live on GitHub. Like you wrote, it's not related to any licensing issue; if the parent is ...


6

I agree with the conclusion in your linked SO answer: the GPLv2-licensed wsdl2h generates code that is licensed under GPLv2 also. Therefore you cannot use unlicense on the output. If you link said code with any other code, the whole program must also be GPLv2. Don't just take my, or the linked answer's, words for it. The gSOAP site says so itself (emphasis ...


6

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 ...


6

IANAL/IANYL, but this looks like an open-and-shut case to me. GPL2s6 says that Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on ...


6

If you're not distributing software in any way, you're fine. The Affero GPL family would prevent you from doing what you're doing. Technically, by linking GPLed code to your own, your own should be under the GPL (not that anybody's going to care). However, you don't have to release anything under the GPL (there are conditions if you distribute, but ...


6

Since you've examined the code of HUSTOJ and are creating a very similar work, you are legally preparing a derivative work of HUSTOJ. Generally, no, you may not license a derivative of a GPLv2-licensed work under the GPLv3 or AGPLv3. See the GPL FAQ's compatibility matrix, which indicates the incompatibility (and note the statement of GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ...


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