New answers tagged

0

Q1: for a repository that is going to be hosted on github, what's a propper way of "inheriting" this license? i.e. what should I put in the license file and what should I put in the header of each file? If it is your intention that parts of the project can only be re-used in different projects under the terms of the GPLv2 license until and unless ...


2

if the whole work has to be published (a must) under GPLv.3 or LGPLv.3 as the used gettext.inc, gettext.php, streams.php are GNU GPLv.2 or later and Smarty is LGPLv.3 or if the whole work could be distributed also under a commercial license which is not compliant with GNU GPL principals? As you are using a library/package under the GPLv2+ license, the ...


2

To me, there are two issues here. One is the system library exception, and the other is whether one's regular GPL source provisioning obligations can be satisfied by pointing to a third-party repository. Firstly, regarding the system library exception, GPLv2 s3 does indeed contain the language you quote. GPLv3 s1 contains a similar exception, but it makes ...


2

Acme Corp. has created an unholy legal mess, both for themselves, Mr. Coyote, and Foobar, Inc. Acme Corp. has committed two acts of copyright infringement: Obviously Foobar's code, which they were not allowed to copy at all. But also all the GPL licensed code: Acme created a derived work of the GPL licensed code. They couldn't distribute it under the GPL ...


-1

First, I AM NOT A LAWYER. Nothing I say should be used as legal advice. Now on to my answer. It depends If Wile E. Coyote isn't interested in changing the code, but just download it to view it he should just delete the code from his computer. In most jurisdictions there is no legal requirement to report spreading confidential code. As long as Mr. Coyote isn'...


16

Mr. Coyote should talk to his lawyers ASAP. While he was unaware that the code he was using was a copyright violation, he could make a reasonable defense against punitive damages. However, now he is aware (or has a strong suspicion) it is a copyright violation and continues to use it, a court will look far less favourably on him. Unrelated to that: Let's ...


0

That's the point of the license, that if you use the software for building a broader one everything for running it shall be warranted to be libre too. GPL only requires that if you publish the software, but AGPL goes a step further and requires it if you use the software as an Internet service. That's why the Imageflow Server has dual licensing, for those ...


1

The AGPL license contains all the same terms and conditions that the GPL license also has. This means that if you use an AGPL licensed library, you must make the entire (C#) application available under the AGPL or GPL license. And that also means you must make the source code available to those who interact with your website under clause 13 of the AGPL.


1

If your installer/builder just takes the build script of the distro as input and it can work with any build script (i.e., your installer/builder does not contain knowledge that is specific to the build script of a particular distro and that can only be learned from looking at GPL-licensed code), then your installer/builder is an independent work as far as ...


3

The license says verbatim: The GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions. It means that if you make a derivative program, you shall make explicit that it's a different one. Not that any change within the same program shall be tracked. That was most ...


2

If you are the copyright holder1 of all the code you wish to release apart from that owned by Microsoft/Nintendo, you have a couple of options here: Release your code under the GPL, but with an exception allowing linking with console manufacturer's code. Dual license your code. The version that you give to the console manufacturers can be binary-only, and ...


3

To paraphrase the quote from the FSF given in the answer by JNic: The license of the interpreter itself is of no concern. The interpreter and the software executed by it are independent works as far as copyright is concerned and their licenses don't affect each other. If you want to keep your application proprietary, you cannot use any GPL-licensed library ...


1

I would say that interpreter provides an isolation and would just give some examples: If I distribute a program including LuaJ and some lua script, is that one program? I would say so. And if I publish the lua script I wrote for it to be GPL, does it mean that LuaJ is GPL? I hope we see the problem here. That should not change what license LuaJ is. Also, ...


2

You must comply with the licenses of all the software that you distribute. Must I include the license statement of every library in the bundle? Yes, if that is required by a license in your bundle. Most open source licenses including MIT, LGPL, GPL require this. Would it be sufficient to only have the license files in the public repo? No, most licenses ...


4

The GPL is not specific to any technology like Java vs Lua, Windows vs Linux. To determine the scope of the GPL, we have but one question to consider: does this form a single program? This question is not for the GPL to answer, it is a question for copyright law. However, the GPL authors have opinions on this question, which I regard as sufficiently ...


Top 50 recent answers are included