New answers tagged

0

The GPL gives you no rights at all when you receive source code. The only one who can grant you any rights is the person giving you the source code. If this person hsa been given the source code licensed under the GPL, it means that they got it under the condition that they may only distribute it to third parties under the conditions of the GPL. You cannot,...


0

If your code is supposed to run on an iPhone: Apple won't allow you to use shared libraries, only static libraries, if you want to put your application on the app store. And with shared libraries, you have ONE application, which you will need to license under the GPL according to the GPL rules.


8

If you receive an open source application from your employer, it hasn't been distributed to you, but to your employer, so you haven't received any rights through that distribution. (However, I have been told that handing software to contractors might be different, so the employer should be careful). Even if you had rights, you don't have the source code. ...


32

The FSF believes, in the jurisdictions they have considered, that the transfer of GPL-licensed software by an employer to an employee, for the fulfillment of their responsibilities as an agent of the employer, does not constitute distribution, so any conditions that GPL imposes on distribution do not apply: Is making and using multiple copies within one ...


3

GPL allows any use, as long as you (or the company) complies with the conditions. They state, in t nutshell, that you can do as you please, but if you distribute (outside the company, in this case) they must distribute full source. In your scenario, there is no outside distribution, they'd be in the clear. Note IANAL, don't even play one here. In any case, ...


0

Like some of the other answers, "it depends". There are situations that seem to not require licensing a work as GPLv3 even if the binary it uses is GPLv3: I recently encountered the WinSCP .NET Assembly and COM Library which uses a GPLv3 binary and does not require the main work to be GPLv3. Because the GPLv3 binary is used as an executable and the ...


1

Assuming your SPA doesn't literally depend on this particular Wikipedia content (any content can work and you just choose this particular content because of reasons), then the SPA and the content are independent works as far as copyright is concerned. This means that their respective licenses do not affect each other. You need to keep the content you copied (...


2

The license of these icons is not compatible with the GPL. The GPL meets the definition that the Microsoft EULA uses for "Excluded license" and the EULA states that the icons may not become subject to such a license. However, not all is lost. If you can write your application in such a way that it reads the necessary icons at runtime from separate ...


5

Depends on whether your application is a derivative work of the modified module. If for example you create an application using the BSD libedit library, using the char *readline(const char*) interface and later someone links your application to libreadline, the linked application is not a derivative work of the module and the linked binary can freely be ...


12

Yes: The GPL doesn't just extend to that particular component but to the entire program that includes GPL components. So if you publish your app, you will have to publish your app as a whole under the GPL and provide the Corresponding Source for the entire app. But this just means that any other parts need a GPLv3-compatible license. For example, you could ...


2

MongoDB's SSPL license is not an open source license and is incompatible with the GPL, so it's good that you ask. But most likely, this license has no consequences in your scenario. The SSPL triggers license conditions when you do one of the following: you give someone else a copy of the SSPL-covered software you create a derived work of the SSPL-covered ...


4

No, you cannot "just" change the license to GPLv3. The MPL2.0 is a per-file strong copyleft license, with an opt-out provision to incorporate MPL-licensed files into a larger project that is under the GPL license. This means that if you only made changes to files containing MPL-licensed code, then you cannot change the license. Also, if the author ...


Top 50 recent answers are included