45
votes
Accepted
If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?
To add a little to planetmaker's excellent answer: I'm not entirely sure what loophole you think you've discovered, but assuming your contention is that you're released from your obligation to ...
29
votes
If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?
That's a legal question, not an open-source one; the answer depends on jurisdiction and on how you fight legal battles. However in short, you are both, victim and offender.
You distribute the software,...
29
votes
Does private GPL open source exist? if so, how does it work if mixed with public GPL?
Your first statement is ultimately false. Anyone who receives a copy of GPL'd software must have the right to redistribute it, so we can be sure that second half of statement #1 is false.
However, the ...
23
votes
Why it is not possible to create a proprietary fork of GPL?-or-later software?
You say "the copyright holder is the same entity" but this is true only for the changes introduced by the downstream distributor. There is also the upstream distributor who licensed their ...
23
votes
Accepted
GPLv3 use in commercially sold embedded system
Considering this is an embedded system and no software/binary is physically handed over to the end user
If you have legal ownership of the device, then the software/binary has been handed over to you,...
15
votes
If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?
Here's a comprehensive answer from https://copyleft.org with some added emphasis:
With ever-increasing frequency, software development (particularly for embedded devices) is outsourced to third ...
13
votes
Accepted
Fix backtick formatting in GNU GPLv3 license
Could I fix this issue in a copy by replacing the backticks with single quotes although it is not allowed to edit the license?
In principle, this kind of change would probably not be forbidden. '...
10
votes
Accepted
Dynamically Linking a Proprietary Module to a GPL-Covered Library (C/C++)
I would like to understand if this project setup complies with the GNU General Public License (GPL). Specifically, I am seeking clarification on whether project Bar, being proprietary and dynamically ...
9
votes
What's the meaning (qualifications) of "machine" in GPL's "machine-readable source code"?
This answer is not based on the actual license text of the GPL, but on my interpretation of the intent of the GPL and how that could/should work out in practice. In that way, it is a subjective answer....
9
votes
Why it is not possible to create a proprietary fork of GPL?-or-later software?
GPLv2+, or GPLv2-or-later, is shorthand for a licensing statement that says
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
...
8
votes
Does private GPL open source exist? if so, how does it work if mixed with public GPL?
When you receive a GPL'ed binary three primary rights are conveyed to you.
You can redistribute the binary.
You can request/obtain the source code.
You can redistribute the source code.
Note: If you ...
8
votes
Distribute the code as closed source and the end users download GPLv3 dependencies separately
You're rightfully confused, it should be simple (but the world is complicated): a GPL-licensed library can only be used in a programme which does give its users the same rights as the GPL provides.
...
8
votes
Accepted
How to counter notice a DMCA takedown if I am merely a GPLv3 licensee?
GitLab has asked you for the wrong thing. The format of a counter-notification is specified in 17 USC 512(g)(3), which requires, among other things:
A physical or electronic signature of the ...
7
votes
What's the meaning (qualifications) of "machine" in GPL's "machine-readable source code"?
not an expert, but as an example 'non-machine readable' could be scanned images of source printout, rather than text files to give to a compiler or interpreter.
7
votes
GPLv3 use in commercially sold embedded system
The other answers are both correct, but I'll try to clarify further. The quoted sections are from the GPLv3 text.
In the text of the license, interpret "you" to refer to the person/company ...
6
votes
Accepted
Why it is not possible to create a proprietary fork of GPL?-or-later software?
There are three pieces of code involved:
A: Upstream software, license says "You can distribute under GPL2 or later".
B: Additions, license says "You can distribute under GPL2 only"...
6
votes
Why it is not possible to create a proprietary fork of GPL?-or-later software?
... it would infringe, however since the copyright holder is the same entity, they would not sue themselves.
At least in Germany (but it should be similar in the US), a license contains the ...
6
votes
Fix backtick formatting in GNU GPLv3 license
I am not a lawyer and I don't know if there is case-law around such changes, but I would expect that changing those back-ticks to regular quote characters would be allowed.
You are not changing the ...
6
votes
Accepted
Can I use GNU GPL v3 in my free Android app?
The Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with the GPL version 2, but it is compatible with the GPL version 3, according to an article from GNU on compatible licenses. So you can combine the Apache 2.0 ...
6
votes
Accepted
"Modding" GPL Software and using in a multi-part commercial application
The advantage of HTML is that it is a standardized markup language. If both the generator and the renderer try to follow that standard, and you also look towards that standard for determining which ...
5
votes
What's the meaning (qualifications) of "machine" in GPL's "machine-readable source code"?
The term "machine-readable" contrasts with "human-readable", and the distinction is mostly that the data is "machine-readable" if it is digital, or easilize digitizable, ...
5
votes
Accepted
Can PyQt5 projects use the MIT license?
It's ok. Your license must be only GPL-compatible (it can be GPL, but it's not mandatory).
MIT and MIT-0 (the license you use) are compatible (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat).
...
5
votes
Distribute the code as closed source and the end users download GPLv3 dependencies separately
Any conditions GPL places on distribution are based on copyright law. It does not involve patent law or contract law, unlike some closed-source software licenses. Details of copyright law vary by ...
4
votes
Fix backtick formatting in GNU GPLv3 license
This is complex to answer because while in your case changing the punctuation does not alter the interpretation, there are cases when this alters the meaning completely:
Man eating fish (image credit)....
4
votes
GPLv3 and executables in GPLv3
The only problem is that you want to use geckodriver.exe and distribute everything under the GPL. Users who want to use your project do not get the geckodriver.exe code, and therefore cannot fulfill ...
4
votes
Are the terms of LGPL 3.0 already covered by GPL 3.0 aggregate definition
Using natively compiled applications in Linux and Windows as example, two program executables sitting on the same storage medium and interacting with each other only through inter-process ...
4
votes
Accepted
Licensing for CC BY 4.0 content digitization
Since the translation (i.e. the text) is out of copyright, you can basically do whatever you want (the OCR'd text is supposed to be word-for-word identical to the uncopyrighted original text, so you ...
3
votes
Can I configure open source tools (GPL, AGPL) for my client?
This is "mere aggregation" as explained in the GPL FAQ:
An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you ...
2
votes
Accepted
Am I allowed to statically link a LGPL-2.1+ library into a GPL3-licensed library?
Yes.
Section 3 of the LGPLv2.1 allows it to be "upgraded" to GPLv2+. So any method of linking, or even direct copying of code, may be used when combining an LGPLv2.1-only or LGPLv2.1+ work ...
2
votes
Am I allowed to statically link a LGPL-2.1+ library into a GPL3-licensed library?
Yes.
LGPL 2.1+ can be "upgraded" to LGPL 3.0 due to the "any later versions" clause.
LGPL 3.0 is compatible with GPL 3.0 - more specifically, if you are compliant with the GPL 3.0 ...
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
Related Tags
gpl-3 × 437gpl × 125
licensing × 83
license-compatibility × 62
mit × 35
gpl-2 × 34
lgpl × 31
proprietary-code × 29
agpl-3.0 × 26
apache-2.0 × 23
commercial × 21
relicensing × 19
copyleft × 19
license-recommendation × 18
github × 17
derivative-works × 17
license × 14
source-code × 14
copyright × 13
python × 11
bsd × 10
distribution × 10
multi-licensing × 10
website × 10
gnu × 10