Hot answers tagged

37

I believe them that they want to release it eventually, but it's not legal to delay like this, right? If indeed Fairphone is distributing a device with an embedded Linux kernel but not making the corresponding source available to recipients of that device, that's a rather cut-and-dry GPL violation. An author whose work is included in Fairphone's version of ...


4

[...] Bob releases all software at employer A under CC-BY-4.0. This is justified because the code will be released as open source due to the nature of the field. No, this is not justified. The code that Bob writes at employer A is the property of employer A and they are the only ones that can definitively state under which license terms the code gets ...


4

The translations are usually a part of the programme and translations hardly fit another context. So that's a good reason to license them under the same terms as the rest - and it saves you licensing troubles. Graphics assets often are treated differently as they might both come from different sources as well be used in entirely different context. ...


3

The GPL does not require you to put the tests under GPL unless you distribute the executables linked with the GPL code. You should disribute the tests as source code, and let the customer find his own copy of the GPL code and compile and link them together to perform the tests himself. As long as you don't do anything even resembling distributing a version ...


3

It probably depends: This does not look like adding source code. It looks like what makefiles add to a repository: instructions how to build your programme from source, specifying tooling in the required order. So it is an indication of using a certain toollike certain flags for certain compilers, to use make or whatever is needed to build your programme ...


3

There usually is a simple way to do so with open source projects: Create a clone of the repository of the project. If it doesn't exist, create a repository and import the version you start with into it. Make the modifications you want and commit them with meaningful commit messages. Make an amendment to the readme that states your contribution. That can be ...


1

For copyright licensing, only the dependencies of the deployed software are relevant. The licenses on your build tools can be completely ignored1. A file like 3RD_PARTY_LICENSES also only needs to refer to the licenses of your dependencies. 1: the exception here are tools that copy part of their source into the output. Those would effectively be a ...


1

The rules are very simple: If you want to relicense a project, then you need approval from all the copyright holders. It does not matter here that the MIT license is mostly a subset of the Apache license. They are different licenses and if you want to change the license under which the project is offered, you need permission.


1

This is a common misconception, but under GPL, you are only obliged to supply source code to "those who receive the binary". Since the phone with the binary on it is not publicly available, they have no obligation to make their source changes public. Even when it's out, they only have a legal obligation to share source with phone owners, not the public as a ...


1

If there's nothing otherwise prohibiting you, you may publish your app code to a public git repository under any license you choose and even with no accompanying license at all. With regard to copyright it depends on applicable laws. In the United States, for example, copyright is automatic and a transfer of that copyright cannot be executed without a ...


1

When you re-license, the GPL would be going on the work as a whole. The Expat parts you added are still licensed under the expat license individually, and under the GPL collectively. (which is why many source files have the license notice at the top in a comment. So people don't have to be concerned about this when developing free software)


1

One directly infringes a patent by making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using it. An open source foundation generally does not do these things. But it likely does encourage others to make, use, etc. technology that it essentially distributes. That can be an indirect infringement classed as contributory infringement or active inducement of ...


1

The GPL does not carry forward to things created by software licensed under the GPL (unless the output contains other GPL licensed code, like libraries. Although, most examples of that have the linking exception applied for this reason.) This is for practical, as well as ideological reasons. Imagine if MS Word 2009™ (or other word processor) required you to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible