New answers tagged gpl-3
7
Wouldn't this change violate the terms of the previous copy-left license?
It is indeed true that the GPL itself does not give permission to offer another's work under more permissive terms like the MIT/X11 license.
Of course, nothing precludes a copyright holder from allowing their work to be made available under other terms besides the GPL. The relevant ...
5
Files that are read as data by the application (i.e. the files may unlock/trigger behavior, but they don't add new behavior or code) are considered independent works of authorship. This means that those files are not affected by the copyright license of the application.
It is not needed that the data files reside in a different directory as the application ...
4
Legally, as the sole copyright holder you can apply any license any time and even in retrospect.
You cannot withdraw the license given to people previously, though; the latter means if you published under GPL and handed out the source, that person can henceforth distribute the source in perpetuity provided the person obeys the license given.
The two ...
1
If the requirements of the client application are just that there needs to be an external program that can be invoked with a two numbers as input and that produces a few numbers as output, then those requirements are generic enough that the client application and the PARI/GP script will be considered to be separate works for copyright purposes. This means ...
2
With what you have done so far, you are nearly there.
Without including a full verbose text of license,
You don't need to include a copy of the GPL license in your own license file, but you should have a copy of it in the FreeFont subdirectory
What should I tell users of the template system?
The only thing missing from your "tutorial" is a link to ...
3
I have no intention of trying to argue with rms about this (or any other GPL-related) issue. But I think there's an interesting difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 that gives rise to a new line of approach to the issue.
The previous issue with Apple was, as the OP notes, GPLv2-specific. GPLv2's handling of additional obligations being placed on ...
3
I emailed Mr. Richard Stallman, the primary author of the GPL, for his opinion on this issue. I received the following reply:
I studied this question for a while. It is clear that that matter of distribution violates GPLv3 overall. However, I couldn't be sure
what courts might say. To work out the answer would require
a very capable lawyer.
4
Could the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3 be circumvented by providing software separately?
Let's look at this in more detail. We have a platform vendor PV which will only allow signed software to run on the platform. The platform is a User Product in the sense of the GPLv3. And we have a software vendor SV which wants to supply software that runs on the platform. However, SV's software is subject to GPLv3.
If SV gives the software to PV which ...
12
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3. The FSF says of v2 and v3 compatibility:
Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination.
If ...
4
It is perfectly fine for you to make a non-GPL program that runs on Linux.
With a somewhat similar result, Linux kernel modules are linked against LGPL code to prevent modules requiring to be GPL. Linus explained this back in 1995 as a deliberate design decision.
When you say "embedded software", you could risk your software becoming part of a single ...
1
Any source which makes use of GPL-licensed code needs to follow the license when you distribute it or it's binaries. That means the GPL applies to the complete work and you will obliged to provide source code.
In your example all three, 3rdPartyRepo, CustomRepo1 and CustomRepo2 cannot be shared without either changing licenses to GPL (and sharing complete ...
0
Anything that links against GPL has to be distributed under GPL. If you never distribute, no problem.
Top 50 recent answers are included
