Basically yes to everything you say, although politically it may get complicated. Section 10 of the GPL v3 forbids any further restrictions your rights under the license:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
"For research purposes only" is exactly the sort of term this is ...
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.
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.
Tivolization, named after TiVo that widely used it, is a practice of devices running free software, but placing restrictions (such as digital signatures) that block running modified versions of the software on the device.
An argument can be made (as Richard Stallman actually did), that such a device could redistribute the source code of the GPLed software ...
When your code contains (or links to) GPL licensed code, then the GPL license requires that you distribute your application under the GPL license.
The GPL does not require that you distribute your application to the general public. It is entirely legal to sell the application to select customers only, and you only have to distribute your source code only to ...
The premiss of your question is faulty, at least so far as the title. You are selling a widget (in this case, a thermostat) which contains the binaries of Ubuntu Server and other pieces of free software, these all being covered by a variety of free licences. This is distribution, plain and simple.
For any software you are distributing, whether yours or ...
Searching for the term "GPL for research purposes only" shows a number of hits that shed a somewhat different light on the matter.
It seems that there is quite a bit of GPL'ed software in the academic medical world. Such software is generally not approved for regular medical use by the regulating agencies. Even if it was, any modification would render the ...
When you acquire a GPL license for this product, build upon it, make a product, and transfer it to your client, there can be two scenarios, and in neither case it is a problem.
In the first case, you write the software as work for hire and transfer the copyright to your client. In that case, there was never any distribution as meant in the GPL. Effectively ...
The GPL is an offer made by the original authors to the manufacturer of the device, and it is also an offer made by the manufacturer of the device to you.
The latter offer is no coincidence; it was a result of the company accepting the first offer.
The problem for you is that the company's obligations follow from the first contract, and that offer said "...
No; incorporating or linking against GPL requires that your project-as-a-whole be distributed under GPL. But you can include MIT licensed parts (or another GPL-compatible license) in the project. Also, it depends.
The pertinent clause is 5 (c):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a ...
The sentence at the top of the GPL, "...changing it is not allowed," does not give you permission to make a derived license from the text of the GPL.
However, the FSF's GPL FAQ item on modifying the GPL does give you that permission (emphasis mine):
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
It is possible to make modified versions of the GPL,...
If you didn't make any changes in your fork of the project, you can just update your fork to include the latest upstream changes and get the license change along with it.
If the copyrights on the changes made on your fork are all owned by you, and you agree with re-licensing those changes under the MIT license, then you can merge the upstream ...
Stack Overflow contributions (and all of Stack Exchange's too) are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0.
That basically means that
You are free to
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms
I believe that GNU GPLv3 does not require attribution, [...] Am I correct in my understanding of GPLv3?
No, the GPL-3.0 always requires attribution composed at the minimum of a copyright statement, a notice and the GPL license text.
Attribution examples are provided at the bottom of the license text.
But what is attribution?
I consider that ...
GPLv3 §6 calls the
methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install….
the Installation Information. The next paragraph requires that when you (paraphrasing) sell a device with the software installed, you must accompany it with the Installation Information.
So, the answer to when is: it must accompany the device.
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 - ...
The code is a derived work of the grammar. (but not of ANTLR)
The Grammar file is a description of how to parse the language, written in EBNF.
The source code generated by ANTLR etc is a description of how to parse the language, written in Java (etc).
The source code was derived from the Grammar, using ANTLR.
It is thus a derived work, of the Grammar (but ...
The natural interpretation of such a license declaration is that they are dual licensing their work:
You can use and distribute it under the terms of the GPL3, which because it is a copyleft license means that your derivative work must also be licensed under the GPL3, so you must make your source code available etc.
Or, you can buy a commercial license ...
If you distribute your propriatiery code combined with GPL licensed code without following the GPL rules, then you commit copyright infringement, and the copyright holder or copyright holders of the GPL licensed code can sue you for damages, and can make you stop distributing your software.
Your contract that the receiving company cannot see or distribute ...
Yes, you can use a GPL3 library  in an AGPL3 program . You can also cut-and-paste GPL3 code into an AGPL3 program.
Both the ordinary GNU GPL, version 3, and the GNU Affero GPL have text allowing you to link together modules under these two licenses in one program.
(from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html )
Obviously, you should make ...
It is true that anyone can modify and redistribute the code of a GNU GPL v3 project. But no one is under any obligation to actually run a modified version that they do not want to run. So yes, you could create your own fork of the voting software and rig it, but no one will run that version on an actual voting computer.
There is a legitimate concern here ...
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 ...
Screenshots might be a derivative work and might need to comply with GPL (or any other open source license).
The factors to determine this are extremely complicated and must be judged individually depending on the screenshot and how the screenshot is being used. They also vary greatly depending what country's laws are being applied.
If in doubt, this is a ...
Short answer: No. The Java (JRE and JDK) binaries provided by Oracle come so many strings attached that they are practically unfit for any usage or redistribution with proprietary or open source-licensed software including GPL-licensed software.
The only sane alternative is to consider the OpenJDK which is using a combo of licenses and is primarily under ...
You are reading the user manual.
You are not reading copyright licence terms.
The technical name in United States law for what you are reading is directions for use. Almost all (there are exemptions) medical drugs and devices must come with them. You have probably seen them on medications that you have bought. Medical software is no exception. It ...
The GPLv3 licence of the original requires that, if you create a work which is (in copyright terms) a derivative of the original, and you distribute your derivative, you must do so under GPLv3.
It's not clear to me in what sense you're using translate. If you mean it in the linguistic sense, translating from one human language to another, then I can't see ...
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 ...
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 ...
TL;DR: yes, the software you distribute which builds on grammar files under copyright for which you have a GPLv3 license must also be licensed under the GPLv3.
Your software is made up of several parts.
The ANTLR runtime (BSD)
The original grammar files (GPLv3)
The rest of your software
Your software contains in part a machine translation of the grammar ...