New answers tagged

2

The GPL and AGPL permit commercial use, as do all licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative. If you want to prohibit commercial use or distribution, you will need to look outside the FLOSS community for licensing terms. Since you mentioned Fancybox, I should note that the author of that software has made significant ...


0

There is various mention of "work for hire" above - but that is a US thing. In the UK the software writer maintains copyright of their code. If you are not keeping copyright of the code, then you should probably check with the client if GPL is okay. At a later date, they may wish to distribute it and they should know that they would need to do this ...


-1

Probably not, but i am not a laywer: Because the (I suppose your contract states that the rights of works created are with the customer) copyright owner the source code copyrights did not license it to you, i do not see how your relationship to the customer would be affected by it. GPL is a license which specifies the minimal rights of the receiver of a ...


5

The Geogebra license is nonsensical. You are absolutely correct: "GPL for non-commercial use only" is an impossible combination. The GPL specifically forbids the imposition of any additional licensing restrictions on top of the GPL: You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. ...


43

So it seems that you're doing this as a piece of contract work, not under employment rules, so the issue of work-for-hire probably doesn't enter into it. The rules about what you can publish and when come entirely out of the contract between you and the payer, and apparently that's not written yet. That's great news. A good contract sets out each side's ...


23

This depends on the contracts for this development effort. The GPLv3 explicitly covers the case that you are doing development exclusively for someone else, and this is OK (section 2, basic permissions): You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for ...


3

In addition to the question as-is, you added in chat I'd [...] ask for solutions to have a test suite with a) "all rights reserved" fonts, b) proprietary fonts that allow embedded and subsetted distribution (I'd link to more specific licenses) and c) fonts under SIL Open Font License. (Where solutions might be technical, like separating software ...


2

Can I, however, distribute bar under a license that says something along the lines of "Bar is distributed under the GPLv3, with the following exception: a non-source form of this work is under TFL". Not meaningfully. GPLv3 s6 says that "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5", and s5c ...


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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included