24

I have done a thorough IP review on my own project in 2007. You can find some info about this project in this slide deck: Startup Legal and IP. I encountered many situations that are similar to what you describe, although none of them were "criminal." These are some examples. Example 1: code that was proprietary to SUN, later open source by SUN under a ...


16

When you put code on GitHub, you retain all the copyright to your code. However, you do grant GitHub a license to host the code, and you also allow GitHub users a set of rights - namely the ability to look at, and fork your repository. These are terms that you have accepted when accepting their Terms of Service when creating a GitHub account. Even when you ...


12

In the 3D graphics world, there are free-licensed models, textures, and the like. When building a 3D graphical work, they're the rough equivalents of code libraries and the like. There's also the open-source hardware movement (OpenCores, RepRap, etc.), though particularly in computing hardware, the line between "software" and "not software" gets a bit ...


8

Han never had copyright on the code. He was unable to license it to anybody. He claimed he gave people a license anyway, but this wasn't true, since he couldn't. All derivative works who thought they had a license to do what they were doing, didn't have a license to do so at all. Han said he gave them a license to the work, but he was lying. The copyright ...


7

Intellectual property, while not the same thing as copyright, tends to follow similar patterns. In a single-owner project, the copyright is entirely theirs, and so is the IP. In a project with multiple contributors and no contributor agreement, the copyright is distributed: each contributor owns the copyright on any contributions he makes. The same applies ...


6

As far as I am able to understand the author, the specific claims being made here are: Some have claimed that it conflicts with AGPL. There exist some people who claim the AGPL "conflicts" with the Commons Clause. Assuming the author here means "is incompatible with" as the FSF uses the phrase, this is true: there do exist such people, ...


6

Why we cannot have a mobile operating system and application store independent of any country's current political views as an alternative for Google android OS So you're presumably aware that there are many community rebuilds of Android. Nearly all of those leave out the Google core apps (the bits that identifiably tie you to Google, including the Play ...


6

Say I'm the only one uploading code to someone's private repository, do they own the copyright to the code? Or do I own the copyright to the code since I wrote it? The author (or copyright holder) of the code "owns" the code, meaning you do. Where the code lives does not have much impact. Now, if this is work you did "for hire" as an employee or ...


6

Sometimes it is made clear in contributor agreements. When there is no contributor agreement, the author(s) of each part of the code own the intellectual property for the part they wrote.


6

When software is diffused under an open-source licence I imagine that a project becomes the "intellectual property" of the community. This is incorrect. Unless copyright has been reassigned, the content creator owns their contributions to a work. As a copyright holder, you can freely choose what rights you want to grant to other people, including different ...


5

There is legally no such thing as "industrial secret", but there are trade secrets. If Han Solo publishes code that contains trade secrets, then he is likely going to jail. Publishing trade secrets when you have no right to do so is criminal. However, most if the time the copying of source code is just plain old copyright violation, whether there are any ...


5

On the surface not, as the source is an integral part (every OSS license is demanding release of source code, not binaries). That is obviously not directly applicable to other copyrighted works, like for example stories. But the ideas of freedom, permission for everyone to copy, modify, redistribute and remix has arrived in other areas. Namely the Creative ...


4

You are free in your license choice. However not every license allows software to be distributed if it links to proprietary libraries. One of the licenses which disallow distribution of software which is not free in its entirety (thus its own source as well as sources of all libraries and dependencies used) is the GPL. That means your 'clause A' is an ...


4

We don't have an alternative to Android OS because no one has made an alternative. There should be no reason it can't be done, it just hasn't been done. I would expect at this point in time, given the market share of Android, that anyone would have a hard time getting a decent market share with an alternative OS. You would need to offer a strong incentive ...


4

Is the output of an ML algorithm a derived work, and if so from what? I'd argue that it is a derived work not of the ML software but only of the training data set as whole, so that this training set's database rights are relevant. Here, you seem to be dealing with an CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 dataset, which is not suitable for your purposes. The first question is ...


4

Virtually all major open source projects require contributors to agree to a contributor licensing agreement that includes language asserting that their contributions are able to be legally contributed to the project. For example, Apache's Individual Contributor License Agreement says You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above ...


4

Wikipedia notes that there are loads of uses, from transportation to robots to beer. Some fall under the umbrella of open source hardware. My favorite of these is the Hyperloop, first pushed forward by Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal and founder of SpaceX and Tesla Motors (some of the latter's ideas are open-source). Numerous groups have done studies ...


3

Simply, yes. Software is the industry in which the open source industry is strongest, but other industries or arts can also be licensed openly. A related industry is hardware. Some microcomputers are open-source licensed. DIY is one such industry: when you make a product, you can release the documents you used to help make it under an open source license. ...


3

As others have said, the Creative Commons licences are generally thought to be better for non-code forms of expression, because the distinction between source and executable form (which the GPL uses a lot) doesn't exist for simple written materials. Before the CC licences were created, the FSF made the GNU Free Documentation Licence specifically to cover ...


2

That's easy. Make sure you don't compile your GUI and your algorithms together statically as a single executable. If you do that, you don't have any GPL obligation for your algorithms. Run your algorithms as a command-line tool and use inter-process communication in your GUI. This is a very common implementation in computer chess engines. Run your ...


2

No open source license would fit your requirements. The Open Source Definition lists things that open source licenses do/not do. OSD #6 is “No Discriminiation Against Fields of Endeavour”, which means that an open source license must not prevent commercial use. You want to allow only personal use; this is not compatible. You are not the only one who would ...


2

There are various licenses which might achieve what you want. The very widely used Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA would seem to do everything you desire, although it is not the only one that would. You can read more about Creative Commons licenses in this Wikipedia article. Note that once a work is released under a creative commons license, people may ...


2

German copyright law distinguishes adaption/modification (Bearbeitung, §23 UrhG) and free use (Freie Benutzung, §24 UrhG) when using older works. A Bearbeitung means that you edit an existing work. The character of the original work is still plainly visible. You hold copyright to your changes, but you need permission from the original copyright holder to ...


2

LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, which itself was based on StarOffice. StarOffice corp, before being acquired by Sun Microsystems, had reverse-engineered rough compatibility with MS Office 97 formats, something that several other companies (e.g. Corel) had done as well. When MS released OfficeXP, they published the full spec to their quasi-XML format ...


2

Does using LGPL libraries in my product prevent me from distributing it under my own license or extending it to cover all work, derived from it? The LGPL only requires that changes made to the LGPL code itself are published under the LGPL users of your product have the possibility (and right) to replace the LGPL code with a version of their own. The ...


1

The last question is the easiest. You apply a licence to it because if you don't, the software is unusable. Nobody else will have the right to run, copy, modify, or redistribute it, so nobody will. As to why you'd put your name on it, I agree that in theory some patent troll could sue you. The thing is, patent trolls exist to make money via lawsuits. It'...


1

While there is a license from the code snippet authors to the code snippet hosting site, there is no license from anyone to you. In absence of an explicit license, all rights are reserved. You have the right to look at the code snippets, but nothing else.


1

Modern electronic products are a combination of hardware and software. Firmware is software that is "burnt" into hardware, that may or may not be modifiable, which controls the functionality of the hardware. Whether the software is stored in a temporary medium such as hard drive or flash memory, or permanently etched into an ASIC, it is still software, ...


1

First: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The first link you gave is the license for the documentation, not the SDK itself. The second link has copyright information on the SDK iself and several components. The SDK itself does not have any particular license according to the document, just this paragraph: This product is developed and ...


1

The Apache license is "sublicenseable": Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible