Hot answers tagged

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 ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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.)...


7

The GPL can be used for any copyrightable work, including images and text. People who distribute such work under the GPL will need to supply the "corresponding source" for making modifications which may simply be the work itself, or some more malleable format (e.g., an image may have been made from a file with editable layers in Photoshop or GIMP, ...


7

The GPL FAQ addresses the issue of "mere aggregation", when it writes An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are nonfree or GPL-incompatible. I see no reason why ...


6

Z will either release his/her work under GPL, or (s)he will immediately cease distribution and refund all his/her affected customers for the code which they have paid to use but may no longer use. Those are the options available (edit: approaching Q for a commercial licence is, as Felix G points out below, another option, though one that I consider very ...


6

You can definitely use Pylint to check a program under any license. However, integrating Pylint into a test suite might require a bit of care. Pylint is a program that reads some files, analyzes the files, and prints out various warnings. Those files happen to be another program, but there isn't really any connection between Pylint and the program being ...


5

LGPLv2.1, the licence under which you have this code, doesn't require any banners or particular forms of advertising. Such requirements famously make licences non-free. Given that you don't intend to modify this code, the LGPL, in brief, requires that you preserve existing copyright notices and copyright disclaimers, and doesn't require that you use any ...


5

However... what rights does the receiver of my code have? All files have a header that states that it's not GPL and forbids redistribution. I think there's two possibilities: The receiver can sue me to release the code under GPL, or report me to the GNU foundation so they can sue me and ask for damages. But the code remains proprietary (even though what I ...


5

"Versions" means a potential GPL v3.1, v4, v5 and so on. "Revisions" is not used in the text you have quoted. With regards to the "proxy" paragraph, it is possible for you, the copyright holder to license a program with something like This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of ...


4

If you do not distribute the software, do whatever you want. It's fine. Even if you do distribute, it is allowed, but the software as a whole will have to be licensed under the GPL.


4

The X11 license permits virtually anything, as long as you retain copyright notices and mention that X11 permissions apply to some portion of your software. This is compatible with virtually all other licenses, including the GPL and even proprietary licenses. Since you are not distributing the software, compatibility with the GPL does not even matter, since ...


4

Userspace is fine. According to the syscall exception, regular programs that interface with the kernel "by normal system calls" are not subject to GPLv2 obligations. If your userspace program interfaces with the kernel in a more intimate fashion than "normal" system calls, then this exception might not apply, but the vast majority of ...


3

I do not know why the author of the SO answer writes as sie does. Having stated that you can't redistribute only parts of OpenJDK, sie then summarises the GPL as saying that you may "modify the program’s source code and distribute the modified source", which explicitly permits you to redistribute only parts of OpenJDK. Yes, you may strip out of ...


3

The anti-tivoization change made to the GPLv3 is to explicitly cal out that signing keys are part of the installation information that you must provide as part of the Corresponding Source, and that using a modified version by itself must not be a cause for a degraded (or non-)functioning of the device. It is debatable if the signing keys are also required to ...


3

The language in GPLv2 s3b says nothing about the permissible time to fulfil a demand for Complete Corresponding Source, but given that the offer only has to be valid for three years, I doubt that a 15-month delay could be seen as reasonable by anyone. In any case, COVID isn't, generally, a permissible reason to delay on a legal obligation; see all sorts of ...


3

If you write software as an employee, you should have an employment contract and get paid. If you write software as a contractor, I assume you have a contract that guarantees that you will be paid as well. Whether you are using open source software doesn't matter at all. There are of course consequences for using open source software: Whoever is the final ...


3

wasm-git (and the libgit2 library it is built around) use the GPLv2 with linking exception. This exception reads: In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the authors give you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this library into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations ...


3

Is there an official definition of release/distribute in GPL (in GPLv2 and GPLv3)? Or it's too simple to be consider as a basic knowledge? No, there is no official definition of either "release" or "distribute" in GPLv2 nor GPLv3. The term "release" is not used in either license in a context where an official definition is ...


3

I am not an expert. AFAIK: You cannot create a non-GPL'ed derivative work over the GPL'ed base work. However, interpretations of what is “derivative work” differ. As a common denominator: You cannot link a GPL'ed library to your code (without making it GPL'ed too). (Although there are different opinions of this topic, see GNU_General_Public_License / ...


2

Ubuntu is a Debian-based Linux distribution. Packages install their licensing information into the file /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright. However, the full text of some common licenses is installed into the /usr/share/common-licenses directory. This includes the various GPL variants. These files are provided by the base-files package. This part of ...


2

It's been a number of years since I looked at GPL licensing, but the last time I did, we all sat down with our attorney and asked about it. What we came up with (in his opinion, which has NOT been tried in a competent court) is that all of the unassociated proprietary code was protectable and ours. We could not claim any form of protection on the GPL ...


2

You are right that if you modify the license notices to remove the reference to GPLv2, then you lose the right to use and distribute the software under that license. However, I don't believe you lose all rights to the software. You still have the rights granted to you under the GPLv3 (which you effectively got under the "or later" part of the ...


2

The OP having considerably clarified the question, I'm rewriting my answer. Bob receives some software from Alice under GPLv2+, and chooses to redistribute it under GPLv3. You want to know if Bob has now lost his right to use the software under GPLv2. He has not. He was given the choice about which terms he could receive the software under, and until he ...


2

To me, there are two issues here. One is the system library exception, and the other is whether one's regular GPL source provisioning obligations can be satisfied by pointing to a third-party repository. Firstly, regarding the system library exception, GPLv2 s3 does indeed contain the language you quote. GPLv3 s1 contains a similar exception, but it makes ...


2

Because we use those LGPLv2.1 libraries and distribute them together with the rest of our application we have too license our work under at least LGPLv2.1 As long as your software has some application component that contains no LGPL-licensed code (but depends on an LGPL library), you may distribute that application component linked to LGPLv2.1-licensed ...


1

I think this depends what you mean by "the library". You can use anything which is in the codebase itself as that is licensed under the GPL. However, all the JavaScript in the sample code (e.g. list.js) is not available for you to use as it is explicitly marked as covered by their commercial license. Similarly, I suspect you'll also find that the ...


1

While the documentation for the branding option only mentions Cloud platform users: https://www.tiny.cloud/docs/configure/editor-appearance/#branding Note: The “Powered by Tiny” product attribution is required for users on the Tiny Cloud Community Plan. Product attribution is optional for premium users. ...the following documentation page goes into more ...


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