New answers tagged

0

The GPL gives you no rights at all when you receive source code. The only one who can grant you any rights is the person giving you the source code. If this person hsa been given the source code licensed under the GPL, it means that they got it under the condition that they may only distribute it to third parties under the conditions of the GPL. You cannot,...


1

I do not distribute binary/docker-image of software B there is a clear boundary between software A and software B, in that software A invokes an API provided by software B, which is the intended use of software B. Both of those considerations are actually irrelevant, or partially so. If your work needs to be licensed under the GPL depends entirely on if it ...


3

Every open-source license allows commercial usage. Every open-source license has to allow commercial usage as one of the fundamental requirements is that any usage is allowed for any purpose (§6 in the linked document). As such your request for an open source license which forbids commercial usage cannot be fulfilled for this inherent contradiction. However, ...


8

If you receive an open source application from your employer, it hasn't been distributed to you, but to your employer, so you haven't received any rights through that distribution. (However, I have been told that handing software to contractors might be different, so the employer should be careful). Even if you had rights, you don't have the source code. ...


32

The FSF believes, in the jurisdictions they have considered, that the transfer of GPL-licensed software by an employer to an employee, for the fulfillment of their responsibilities as an agent of the employer, does not constitute distribution, so any conditions that GPL imposes on distribution do not apply: Is making and using multiple copies within one ...


0

This sounds like "mere use" of B. You could even ship both together ("mere aggregation", there is no intimate relationship between A and B).


3

GPL allows any use, as long as you (or the company) complies with the conditions. They state, in t nutshell, that you can do as you please, but if you distribute (outside the company, in this case) they must distribute full source. In your scenario, there is no outside distribution, they'd be in the clear. Note IANAL, don't even play one here. In any case, ...


1

If I'm to understand this right, this question seems to be about generating code in a target language, where the language itself someone's closely-guarded intellectual property. For instance, the language is not even publicly documented. Let's go with the assumption that one needs to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to know anything about this ...


3

There is a general understanding that the license of a program does not apply to data processed with it. Blender being Open Source does not restrict licensing for scenes created with it. Technically, it could be argued that compiled software is a combined work as the compiler contains code fragments that are copied to the output file in the appropriate order ...


2

I will assume that you have developed this code de novo, and thus are the sole rightsholder in it. Licences do not inhere in software, they attach to the recipients through the act of conveyance. So if you upload it to a repo that nobody can see or access, saying that you are doing so "with a GPL licence" is fairly meaningless. The important bit ...


3

The important point to focus on is that, with certain exceptions, the licence on a piece of software doesn't affect the outputs of that software. Instead, the outputs are generally a derivative work of the inputs, so the licence on the outputs (if any) will be governed by what rights and obligations the program's user has with regard to making derivative ...


1

I don't know with enough confidence what the situation is with regard to the students. When it comes to employees of the organization, when they are provided with a copy of (L)GPL-licensed software, with the understanding that that software is provided to them so they can perform their duties on behalf of the organization, then that software is considered to ...


2

Suppose I wanted to sell a pre-configured device with a FOSS OS, some Apache 2.0 and MIT licensed programs and own compiled source code along with the system to a customer. Do I then have to disclose my source code to customers, according to the GPL? No, you do not have to disclose your source code to your customers, assuming your own application does not ...


4

With the GPL, there is no need for any "transfer of ownership" in a legal sense. Anybody can pick up the code and make any changes they like to it, so long as they make those changes available in accordance with the license - and this is what the forks in your example have already done. There may be a community which has formed around the original ...


1

I also read somewhere that notices are no longer obligatory under Berne Convention (at least in countries that are signatories to the convention) You are not required to add a copyright notice to your work in order to be able to establish copyright protection. But once a copyright notice exists, most licenses do not allow you to remove it. When you copy (...


-1

Depending on the language your project is developed in it may be the case that the GPL / MIT licensed code can be installed via a package management tool. Composer for PHP, NPM for NodeJS, RubyGems for Ruby, PyPI for Python, etc. In this scenario, attribution wouldn't be needed. Failing that, you could look to other projects for inspiration. Here's what ...


0

If I were using files from project1 with MIT license, and files from project2 with GPL license, I would create two subdirectories: project1: including the files from project1, and a file named LICENSE or COPYING containing the license project2: same as above but for project2 I would try to keep as separate as possible my code from their code, so that I ...


2

All of the packages your mentioned are available under the LGPL, not just the GPL. The LGPL says that dynamic linking is fine. Since you're not compiling these binaries into your .NET app, there doesn't seem to be an issue with the licenses. But when you distribute a container image, you're distributing all the software contained in that image. The GPL and ...


3

Q1. The FSF/GNU has pretty clear guidelines on how to format copyright notices: […] add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you’re using a publicly accessible revision control server, so that every revision installed is also immediately and automatically published.) […] You can use a range […] if and only if: ...


3

We have to separate the license terms from the license itself, and from other notice requirements. The license terms are about what the recipient is allowed to do with the covered work. The license says “this work is covered by those license terms”. There might be other notices. Copyright notices are usually not legally necessary, but provide nice ...


3

The Classpath Exception has a similar intention to the LGPL: to keep the covered work itself under GPL-like terms, while allowing linking with non-GPL components. In particular, this allows such works to be integrated with proprietary software. However, there are some differences. How they are applied: The Classpath Exception is an additional permission ...


3

First off, to compare the Oracle v Google case with your example, the Oracle code would be similar to library B and the Google code would be comparable to library C. The equivalent of library A would be a normal Java library written by a third party (i.e. not part of the JDK or Android). The decision by the US Supreme Court has very little to no impact on ...


4

No, you cannot "just" change the license to GPLv3. The MPL2.0 is a per-file strong copyleft license, with an opt-out provision to incorporate MPL-licensed files into a larger project that is under the GPL license. This means that if you only made changes to files containing MPL-licensed code, then you cannot change the license. Also, if the author ...


1

Yes, your interpretation is correct. If you received a package under the GPLv3 license, then any modified versions you publish (make available to others) must also be published under the GPLv3 license. When you have multiple, independent, packages in your repository, then you can either use the same license for all of them (which would have to be the GPLv3 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included