New answers tagged

3

No, you are misinterpreting the table. The top-left entry you've highlighted ("I want to copy code under GPL v2 only" / "I want to license my code under LGPL v2 only") says that if you are the copyright holder of some code which you which to release under the LGPL v2 only, then you can copy some GPL v2 code and distribute the binaries - ...


2

Basically, yes, you do. It is absolutely fine to sell GPL-covered code, but you must deliver freedom along with the binary. That is, you must deliver the complete corresponding source also, and both source and binary must be covered by GPLv3, which will allow recipients to share them (whether modified or unmodified) with others, on those same terms. Note ...


1

You have some very strong misconceptions about the AppStore. Apple won't reject your app because it is opensourced (just add the open source license as your own license). BUT Apple will reject your app if one of the copyright holders complains. Including the copyright holders of the original open source code. That's not because there would be anything wrong ...


18

Nearly no way if we talk GPL. If you use GPLv3 code in your project or you use it for reference for a re-implementation or port, you are bound by the license. That's the point of a license: you are given permission to use the code on the conditions stated in the license. Without license you would not have legal access to use it at all. If you call the n2n ...


0

It is not possible to give a definitive answer if your plan complies with the GPL license restrictions or not. Your Program2 can be seen as a plugin for Program1, and the GPL FAQ has this to say about plugins: When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program? It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins. If the main program ...


7

Licences do not inhere in code; their obligations attach to recipients through the act of conveyance. So yes, as long as you're the sole rightsholder, you can take code you were distributing under GPLv2 and distribute instead under GPLv3+. You can even distribute it under both licences simultaneously, if you want, though it will be confusing so you ...


1

You may license your library under any terms you like. What you may not do, however, is distribute a binary that results from linking your library into code you received under GPLv3, unless you obey the GPL's requirements. These include distributing complete corresponding source code (GPLv3 s6), which would include your library, and all of it must be under ...


3

Firstly, GPLv3 doesn't mention "internal use" at all, so the answer to the question in the title is "nothing". That said, we already have a question that discusses whether sending code from one company, A, to another company, B, constitutes distributing it, and thus triggers GPL obligations. It concludes that it does, because A and B are ...


2

As a hardware developer (like arduino board etc.) does one have to license PCB's files under GPL if the included software uses GPL licensed parts? No. From a copyright perspective a hardware layout and a software application are completely independent works and their licenses don't affect each other. Also I'm not fully understanding GPLv3 about Tivoization ...


Top 50 recent answers are included