New answers tagged

1

The rules are very simple: If you want to relicense a project, then you need approval from all the copyright holders. It does not matter here that the MIT license is mostly a subset of the Apache license. They are different licenses and if you want to change the license under which the project is offered, you need permission.


0

When this happens to me, then I work it so that it is to company A's disadvantage. E.g. write for B, then distribute to A after ward (The delay is to A's disadvantage, but is inline with the contract). In addition, I will tell them that the contract is bias and thus not complaint with contract law in my jurisdiction. As there is disagreement on this, I will ...


-1

From the BSD license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. You absolutely cannot distribute source code or binary w/o ...


4

The translations are usually a part of the programme and translations hardly fit another context. So that's a good reason to license them under the same terms as the rest - and it saves you licensing troubles. Graphics assets often are treated differently as they might both come from different sources as well be used in entirely different context. ...


3

It probably depends: This does not look like adding source code. It looks like what makefiles add to a repository: instructions how to build your programme from source, specifying tooling in the required order. So it is an indication of using a certain toollike certain flags for certain compilers, to use make or whatever is needed to build your programme ...


1

This is a common misconception, but under GPL, you are only obliged to supply source code to "those who receive the binary". Since the phone with the binary on it is not publicly available, they have no obligation to make their source changes public. Even when it's out, they only have a legal obligation to share source with phone owners, not the public as a ...


1

The GPL does not carry forward to things created by software licensed under the GPL (unless the output contains other GPL licensed code, like libraries. Although, most examples of that have the linking exception applied for this reason.) This is for practical, as well as ideological reasons. Imagine if MS Word 2009™ (or other word processor) required you to ...


1

When you re-license, the GPL would be going on the work as a whole. The Expat parts you added are still licensed under the expat license individually, and under the GPL collectively. (which is why many source files have the license notice at the top in a comment. So people don't have to be concerned about this when developing free software)


37

I believe them that they want to release it eventually, but it's not legal to delay like this, right? If indeed Fairphone is distributing a device with an embedded Linux kernel but not making the corresponding source available to recipients of that device, that's a rather cut-and-dry GPL violation. An author whose work is included in Fairphone's version of ...


4

[...] Bob releases all software at employer A under CC-BY-4.0. This is justified because the code will be released as open source due to the nature of the field. No, this is not justified. The code that Bob writes at employer A is the property of employer A and they are the only ones that can definitively state under which license terms the code gets ...


1

If there's nothing otherwise prohibiting you, you may publish your app code to a public git repository under any license you choose and even with no accompanying license at all. With regard to copyright it depends on applicable laws. In the United States, for example, copyright is automatic and a transfer of that copyright cannot be executed without a ...


0

I don't agree with the previous answer, using a GPLv3 library does not make your website GPL, if you merely include the library in its compiled form provided by the author and exported to the window namespace. Then it's the same as using a precompiled binary in other programs, and using "sockets, pipes and command line interface to communicate with it" By ...


0

It will be more like having two licenses. One that you grant only to a specific group of people.


2

I know it's not much of an answer, but yes: it seems to me you have done your research carefully and understood the process well. The only change I would make is that the file LICENCE (or License, or similar) should contain the full text of GPLv3, rather than information about it. But other than that, I think you've got it.


Top 50 recent answers are included