29
You have accepted two other small commits to this project, but apart from those you are the sole rightsholder in your work. Moreover, although IANAL/IANYL, because the two commits simply correct the target text of some links in the documentation, it seems likely that they do not qualify for copyright protection.
As we discuss here, as the sole rightsholder ...
9
If I write some program from scratch, I can choose to license as open source under e.g. GPLv3, and simultaneously license it for a stiff fee for use in closed source applications, no GPL strings attached. I could even get tired of it all and sell all rights. If my project gets third party contributions, I'll have to make sure the relevant rights are ...
8
The license of an application and the license of data that application produces can be independent, and are only interrelated if the data includes executable code from the executable itself:
Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these ...
6
In answer to the question in the title: GPLv3 (like earlier versions) is definitely triggered by such distribution, as this constitutes making copies of a copyright-protected binary, an act normally reserved to the rightsholder and his/her licensees. GPLv3 is quite clear about the terms that apply to your license to distribute, when in s2 it says "...
5
My understanding is that: a. Backend service is a modified version of GPL covered work (dynamically linking considered as modification, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic)
They call it a combined work, but close enough, yes.
b. Backend service isn't conveyed/distributed, because the interaction is done over the network (see ...
5
As the accepted answer states, you should be fine doing this as you appear to be sole copyright holder. Were you not sole copyright holder, you would need either copyright assignment statements (this is actually one of the things that a lot of contributor license agreements include, but usually for different reasons) or explicit permission from each other ...
5
I have research information on licensing for the past two days and from what I understand my project is considered as a derivative work from the original project. According to that, my project also needs to be under GPL, that I understand.
This is mostly correct. The bits of code that you translated from C to Python are almost certainly a derivative work of ...
4
I know it may be late now but if you still have that version of the binary module, you can ask for the source code by emailing to legal@crowdstrike.com. Apparently they have now switched to proprietary kernel modules but if you have a version of the older binary with GPL license, you can ask for the source code. Please see here for details.
2
I feel that congusbongus' accepted answer pretty much nails it (thanks @brandin for the link):
Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?
The compiler would have to be freely (or maybe "easily", like in the case of Visual Studio) available, otherwise one could argue that an important part of the "corresponding ...
1
Copyright law is interesting because it's at the boundary of criminal and civil law. But in this case, the criminal side can be safely ignored. Criminal prosecution has a higher standard of evidence, and this case is murky enough that there is insufficient public interest for the State to press charges.
This leaves us with the civil side, as apsillers ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
