48
A license either is an open-source license, or it restricts usage of the software to certain regions or types of usage. You cannot have both.
That said, it is not your responsibility as the software creator to forbid people the usage when the law already forbids the usage. That serves no purpose (law overrides license, always) and would impose an unnecessary ...
19
Generally, yes, if you hold the copyright to some code, you may issue simultaneous licenses for others to make use of that code under different terms.
But the code I write would be helpful for my work (in fact my motivation for writing it is to help at work, but I am being careful to avoid writing it in a professional capacity as I know that this sometimes ...
16
No and No, and also you shouldn't
License
The requirement you propose is in contradiction with the official definition of open source, namely with criteria 1 and 5 (since I interpret inhabitants of a certain country as group of persons):
Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of ...
9
As long as you are the only contributor, yes.
However, the nature of Open Source is that it attracts contributions from other people.
One option is to simply refuse contributions. If people want changes, they have to fork the project.
Alternatively, you can maintain two versions, one under GPL and one for the company.
For big contributions, it is easy. You ...
6
The GPL does not restrict how you may use the software, it only places conditions how you can distribute or modify the software. Thus, using a GPL-covered IDE to produce proprietary software is perfectly fine. Similarly, it is well-established that using GPL-covered compilers (like GCC) to compile proprietary software is perfectly fine. An editor, IDE, or ...
6
A clear 'yes', your reasoning is sound in its entirety.
You are the (sole) author, you decide who gets the software under which license. If that means that everyone gets it under GPL and your employer under a special license with additional rights (and possibly obligations), that's totally in your power to do.
You don't give any indication for this, so it ...
4
It is clear to me that any fork of dwm must also be licensed under an MIT/X-compatible license
That is not, in fact, clear. Firstly, if you read this question you'll see that there is quite a body of opinion that says it's perfectly acceptable to change the licence conditions on code if it was shared with you on terms that do not forbid that. The copyleft ...
3
Is there an official definition of release/distribute in GPL (in GPLv2 and GPLv3)? Or it's too simple to be consider as a basic knowledge?
No, there is no official definition of either "release" or "distribute" in GPLv2 nor GPLv3.
The term "release" is not used in either license in a context where an official definition is ...
3
It is true that most free software licences require that code covered by them be accompanied by a copy of the licence; GPLv2 requires it in s1, for example. But we have also noted that the licence doesn't bind the rightsholder. Assuming Oracle are the sole rightsholder in the code above, as the copyright line suggests they are, then they don't have to obey ...
2
Background information
What is a "license"?
The answer: A "license" is the permission given by the author of a software (or other kind of copyright protected work) to do something with the software that requires the permission of the author according to the law.
If the law states that something is allowed or forbidden independently of the ...
2
Based on your description, it doesn't seem like these are really "plugins" at all - they can function entirely separately from your main application, and don't need anything from the main application. That sounds like a separate program, so the GPL which covers those programs wouldn't extend to your Electron app. The FSF have their views on this in ...
2
Yes, you can do that. Software licensed under a BSD-3-clause software is compatible with the GPL license. As such you are allowed to distribute it under GPL v3. That includes that you add a copyright notice to the file - especially if you make modifications to the file (otherwise it would IMHO be bad style, but still not forbidden).
Mind to adhere to the BSD-...
2
Can I, however, distribute bar under a license that says something along the lines of "Bar is distributed under the GPLv3, with the following exception: a non-source form of this work is under TFL".
Not meaningfully. GPLv3 s6 says that "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5", and s5c ...
1
Without the agreement of Suckless, it is clear to me that any fork of dwm must also be licensed under an MIT/X-compatible license.
As the MIT/X license also gives recipients the right to sublicense the work, it is almost trivial to meet that requirement.
The only licenses that would be incompatible are what I would call The One That Rules Them All licenses: ...
1
So having thought about this, I should be clear how I'm coming at the answer. We already have a pair of questions that address the issue of whether dynamic linking creates derivative works; one for those who think it does, and one for those who think it doesn't. Both note that the question remains unsettled, but I firmly believe that dynamic linking does ...
1
I am being careful to avoid writing it in a professional capacity as I know that this sometimes can cede the copyright to my employer
My question is: Am I free to give an exception in this case, given that I hold the copyright for this program? Either explicitly, or by simply never mentioning that the software is free in the first place.
If you want to ...
1
The FSF (owners of the GPL licenses) take the stand that by writing programs to the API of the libary creates a derivative work, that thus must be distributed under GPL. As far as I know (IANAL, even less one versed in copyright law and open source licensing), there are no legal precedents on the point.
Case in point is the (GPLed) readline libary. For quite ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
