27
In general, if something is completed as "work for hire" then anything produced as part of that work belongs to the hirer, not the hired. However (and this is a very big however) there is enough uncertainty around exactly what counts as "work for hire" that you should always spell this out explicitly in any contract. This is all ...
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 ...
6
You can remove the GPL entirely from this question. So much that it may even fit better at law.stackexchange.com.
For instance, suppose that instead of a GPL library, Joe is the owner of some proprietary library he licenses to his customers. Then Joe is hired to do some work for a company, and in the scope of this work, he decides to include his library in ...
5
Yes, you can license the work under new terms to everyone or just to this one person, as you like.
You don't need to release a new version to add a license. If you did, then companies that sell licenses to use their software would have to bump the version number every time somebody bought one.
Am I free to rescind the share-alike requirement of GPL by just ...
3
It's tricky. What would have been best if customer and author had figured out what exactly they want, and a contract had been signed to specify that. As it is, there are lots of unknowns; I would suggest the author should ask the company nicely for a gpl-licensed copy of the code and he is mostly in the clear (mostly because he is not the sole copyright ...
3
The SLA0044 is a zero-cost licence; it permits redistribution and use without payment, but it doesn't give users most of the freedoms associated with free software. It is also, as you have pointed out, aggressively keen to stay that way.
As I read it, you can't meaningfully release your code under GPL, since your code requires the library to build into a ...
1
In general, as you are the sole author, you can release your work under any license and you can change the license at your will.
Since you cannot change the licence retroactively, you cannot say "Version x.y.z which was under GPL from today is under your-needed-license".
So I think that the the simplest solution is for you to relase a x.y.z+1 ...
1
This is really a question for a lawyer; however, some thoughts on how it should work out:
Assuming the library was a preexisting work by you as the author, and the contract did not specify any additional licensing or assignment of copyright over that work aside from the existing public license, I think you're fairly safe using any minor changes, especially ...
answered Oct 18 at 13:54
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
1,9741 gold badge8 silver badges10 bronze badges
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 ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible