47
If your plugin is a derivative work of the GPL-covered software, then you can only publish/share/distribute your plugin under the terms of the GPL.
It is not clear when a plugin is a derivative work. It seems to be the belief of the FSF (the GPL authors) that the following aspects can indicate derivativeness:
the plugin is designed to be combined with a ...
12
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3. The FSF says of v2 and v3 compatibility:
Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination.
If ...
5
If you accepted contributions from third parties, their contributions belong to them and you can't change licensing terms on them. They might not even have made their contributions legally available at all...
That is why most projects insist on some sort of agreement that any contributions are (a) legal to make (i.e., no code pilfered from a third party, no ...
4
It is perfectly fine for you to make a non-GPL program that runs on Linux.
With a somewhat similar result, Linux kernel modules are linked against LGPL code to prevent modules requiring to be GPL. Linus explained this back in 1995 as a deliberate design decision.
When you say "embedded software", you could risk your software becoming part of a single ...
4
The wording "should" is a dead giveaway. The FSF would generally like you (and everybody else) to comply with their ideology but they have no real means of forcing you, in general. That's not necessarily a bad thing because although it's a bit quixotic, the FSF ideology isn't bad.
In general, you are legally bound to comply with all terms that anyone (not ...
4
Legally, as the sole copyright holder you can apply any license any time and even in retrospect.
You cannot withdraw the license given to people previously, though; the latter means if you published under GPL and handed out the source, that person can henceforth distribute the source in perpetuity provided the person obeys the license given.
The two ...
4
Could the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3 be circumvented by providing software separately?
Let's look at this in more detail. We have a platform vendor PV which will only allow signed software to run on the platform. The platform is a User Product in the sense of the GPLv3. And we have a software vendor SV which wants to supply software that runs on the platform. However, SV's software is subject to GPLv3.
If SV gives the software to PV which ...
3
I have no intention of trying to argue with rms about this (or any other GPL-related) issue. But I think there's an interesting difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 that gives rise to a new line of approach to the issue.
The previous issue with Apple was, as the OP notes, GPLv2-specific. GPLv2's handling of additional obligations being placed on ...
3
I emailed Mr. Richard Stallman, the primary author of the GPL, for his opinion on this issue. I received the following reply:
I studied this question for a while. It is clear that that matter of distribution violates GPLv3 overall. However, I couldn't be sure
what courts might say. To work out the answer would require
a very capable lawyer.
3
These labels are only as good as the metadata that goes into them. When the license is unknown, it is reported as “proprietary” as a fallback.
The issue is known as #398 but it has not yet been fixed. My guess it that the software contains assets under the Free Art license, which doesn't have an SPDX identifier, so the license metadata is not machine-...
3
Let's say I develop a plugin for third-party application X. My plugin has a non-free license, and is commercially distributed. I don't distribute application X.
Okay. That would require that your plugin not be a derivative work of any work covered by the GPL. That means that it cannot contain sufficient protectable expression from the work that is covered ...
3
Most of these questions have not been decided in the courts, and it's anyone's guess how they would be decided if the question came up. A lawyer's guess might be better than yours, or it might not; the language in the FSF licenses is so vague technically that I certainly wouldn't want to hazard a guess myself.
So it comes down to what risks you are ...
3
No. If your code works with the GPL program, then the whole program must be released under GPL, which you can't do because ProprietarySDK is non-GPL.
There is a similar issue with including ProprietarySDK in your program: you will have to check what their licence allows.
The FSF's position:
"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are ...
2
As I understand it, this is mere use together of the two separate pieces by the recipient of your package (you talk about "bundling" because it helps -- i.e., isn't really essential). As such, this is mere aggregation as GPLv2 understands it, and you are in the clear. Just keep both pieces apart, state clearly what is what, where each piece comes from, and ...
2
Note that Linux kernel makes specific exceptions 1 towards userspace apps using GPL kernel services through syscalls.
NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived
work". Also note that the GPL ...
2
Can I use a more permissive licence (e.g., BSD/MIT/Apache) for my source code on GitHub, and at the same time use a GPLv2 license for its PyPI binary distribution?
Yes, you can. You can even create a separate PyPI binary without FFTW3 support and distribute that under the more permissive license.
The GPL license requires that, if you use GPL-licensed code ...
1
If the requirements of the client application are just that there needs to be an external program that can be invoked with a two numbers as input and that produces a few numbers as output, then those requirements are generic enough that the client application and the PARI/GP script will be considered to be separate works for copyright purposes. This means ...
1
This isn't coherent. If I get code under e.g. MIT, and compile it myself, I have to comply with MIT for source and binary. If I get binaries under GPL, I have to comply with GPL, and I am entitled to source code under GPL by that same license. But then I get the code, can elect under MIT, and the first case applies.
Open Source licenses are designed to ...
1
Is Flameshot mislabeled on the Software Center?
Yes. The Ubuntu Software Center does not label software licenses accurately at all. In addition, it does not make any distinction between different licenses such as GPL, LGPL, etc. In short, you cannot trust what the SW Center displays at all as far as licenses are concerned.
For this specific case, as you ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
