Hot answers tagged

49

Generally speaking, a licence grant is not revocable once it has been relied on. Once an author has published a piece of code under a licence, and someone has taken a copy on that basis, the author cannot retrospectively revoke that licence. If that licence permitted the recipient to make further copies, as free licences do, then you can get a copy from ...


46

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.


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.


29

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 ...


19

That depends. 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 ...


18

With licenses it is actually quite simple: No license means no rights to you to even use the code for whatever purpose. Code being available somewhere for download doesn't imply any right to use it - similar as you don't have the right to harvest a field, just because you can enter it from the street. If there is a license that specifies the conditions ...


16

You have a misconception here. You're thinking that licenses take away your right to use a piece of code. In fact, licenses give you the right to use a piece of code. If there's no license, you can't use it. The exception is fair use: if you want to use the code in a way which is fair use, then that is permitted, whether or not there's a license. But if you ...


10

Am I right assuming that the AGPL and GPLv3 are compatible? Yes, you can combine them, with the combination effectively being governed by the AGPL v3 license: GPL v3 section 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work ...


9

The availability of the source code under the GPLv3 would indeed indicate that commercial use is permitted, but it is under a heading of "non-commercial license terms". My guess (though truly, the document is unclear enough that it really is just a guess) is that the authors intended to license a subset of GPL rights, i.e., limited to the intersection of ...


8

No, there is no universal definition of “file” that is accepted in all jurisdictions. However, this technical term is easy to understand and unambiguous in most applications of the license, and therefore does not present a problem. Your particular mention of TCP is not an issue here because TCP is not used for data storage but for data transmission. In many ...


8

IANAL, but I believe this is legal within GPLv3. That is why there exists Affero General Public License (AGPLv3) license. This will force them to share any source code changes if running it on a web server (e.g. if software/scripts not run locally on client).


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

No, this is not really possible. The next closes thing that you could do is to add an additional term under GPLv3 section 7: 7(b) to require the “preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it” 7(c) to prohibit “misrepresentation of the origin ...


6

I understand your question like this: "I received the source code for a software package. The root directory of the source code contains a COPYING file containing the GPLv3. I found a subdirectory in that tree that contains another project that has been re-used by the GPL project as sub-project. The subdirectory makes no mention of the GPL, but instead ...


5

If you only run the software on servers that you control, then that is not considered distribution according to the GPL license and thus you are not required to publish your source code. If you give the binaries to others to run on their servers, then you are distributing the software and you need to observe the restrictions of the GPL license. That means ...


5

As the plat viewer is based upon a GPL licensed project, clause 6 of the GPL license requires that the source code must be made available: Conveying Non-Source Forms. You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of ...


5

I don't know MacOS development, but I assume there must exist some way of running a non-notarized executable, if only for development purposes. (Otherwise, you'd have to submit your binary for notarization each time you ran your compiler, which seems unlikely, even for Apple's possessive attitude toward Mac development.) The "tivoization" requirement in ...


5

What you want appears basically to be source-disclosure copyleft as employed by the GPL (though you appear to tolerate nonfree terms, as long as they still include source disclosure). In the case that an MIT projects wants to use your work, you're happy to let them do so, because they disclose their source code. But as soon as a proprietary project wants to ...


5

No, it is completely lawful, and in my opinion a public service. The only possible argument against it would be that you're circumventing a technological protection measure, a practice which signatories to certain WIPO treaties are obliged to forbid. GPLv3 is very clear that that doesn't apply, in s3: When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal ...


5

Yes, that would be allowed. Versions of a software product that don't derive from/use GPL code are not subject to the GPL licensing terms, so you can use whatever license ou like for those versions. If the people using the development builds are all part of the same organisation, which holds the copyright on the project, then there the use of the GPL ...


4

Assuming you are the only copyright holder on the code of the library, you can freely change the license that is applied to the library. With the unlicensed version of your library, the rights of others are very limited. They may fork your repository (per the ToS of GitHub), but that is just about where it stops. People are not allowed to make changes or ...


4

Considering GPL-v3 and GPL-v2 this is not required at all (and this is true for all opensource licenses). The main purpose of a "GitHub fork" is to collaborate back to the original project, this could be one of the reason a lot of "true forks" are not using that link. Regarding the project health as @PeterCordes commented If you can every usefully ...


4

You need not change your project's license because your project does not have a license. A license is a legal granting of rights between two people (or other legal entities). If there is only one party involved (i.e., you) then there can't be a license in effect. It seems like you added some license headers and a copy of the GPLv3 to your code. This doesn't ...


4

As I understand it, if I implement the algorithm myself, then I could license that code under the GPL, but someone else could potentially re-implement the entire algorithm from scratch (for example, in a different programming language, but using the same core steps), and their implementation wouldn't necessarily have to be GPL-licensed. Basically, and IANAL/...


4

We can both write a HelloWorld application in the same language and chances are that both programs will look very similar. This does not mean that, if I were to publish mine first, that your version would be derived from mine. Both are independent works, no matter how similar they look. Copyright law and -judges also recognize the fact that as there become ...


3

Your code either is derivative of GPLv3 software, or it is not. If it is derivative you can only publish your code under the GPLv3 as well, if it isn't derivative you can do whatever you want. It is not entirely clear whether your software would be derivative of the Emacs Orgmode implementation. Implementing the same file format does not render your ...


3

The GNU GPL does not really concern software use (other than saying it can't be constrained). What matters is distributing software. If the software stays on your own hardware, you do not owe the source code to anyone. So only in the four situation do you need to provide the source code. The GNU AGPL is tighter, requiring you to provide the source code if ...


3

Yes; both LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3 are compatible with GPLv3. You can find more details, and the resource you were looking for, at the FSF's licence summary page, which includes their take on which licences are compatible with the various versions of the GNU GPL.


3

The software is copyrighted whether or not a license is accepted. However, the copyright holders provide a public license (the GPL) that waives some of the copyright holder's rights. For example, the copyright holders waive their exclusive right to make copies, on the condition that whoever makes a copy abides by the requirements laid out in the license. ...


3

Nearly all open source licenses include a disclaimer of warranty and a limitation of liability, including the GPLv3 (see sections 15–17). However, whether and to which extent such disclaimers are possible depends on the user's local jurisdiction. Maybe you are liable, maybe you are not. In practice, as long as you show a good faith effort to write working ...


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