New answers tagged


From what you've written, I'm not entirely clear about the problem. I'm going to assume that you're the sole rightsholder in {data,domain,app,device}.gradle (forgive the regexp) and that data.gradle, though written entirely by you, is linked to a third-party AGPLv3 library. Thus {domain,app,device}.gradle are unconstrained with respect to licence, but data....


According to GPLv3's third-draft rationale document: The GPLv3 compatibility of the Apache license patent termination clause was accomplished in Draft 3 by the second specific example of an impermissible further restriction given in the third paragraph of section 10. Looking at GPLv3, this specific example reads you may not initiate litigation (including ...


Let's say that someone uses your project (licensed under your custom license) in an MIT licensed application. Since the MIT license explicitly allows the software to be distributed closed source, your custom license would be ineffective and would not make sense. If you do not want your library to be used in proprietary software, then the best choice would be ...


There's two fundamentally different takes on open source licenses: a) the permissive ones like MIT, Apache etc which - roughly speaking - don't care what happens to their sources as long as the credits are maintained and communicated. b) And there's the more strictly open source licenses, the copy-left licenses, which want to make sure that any derivative ...


The Eclipse Distribution License (EDL) is just an alternative name for the BSD 3-clause license, listed by the GNU project as the modified BSD license. This is a highly permissive license that is widely compatible with other licenses, including the GPL and AGPL in all versions.


As others have noted, someone distributing software cannot change substitute their license for whatever license a third part distributed the third-party software under. So no license can offer any assurance there's no third-party components with a more restrictive license. There is no substitute for examining all third-party pieces and their licenses. When I ...


Not directly answering the question, but the Free Software Foundation maintains a list of Free GNU/Linux distributions here Since in freedom 1 is stated that "Access to the source code is a precondition for this.", I believe that all the distributions listed there are fully open-source too (otherwise the precondition of freedom 1 would not hold)


No Open Source license does that. Even the GNU GPL license allows one program to interact with another non-free program via pipes, sockets, streams etc. While the licenses can't do this, there are Linux distributions where the distribution creators make a commitment to only including free software, for example the Debian main package repository.


Which licenses give me a guarantee that a software I'm installing is completely open-source, free of closed-source dependencies or components? Unfortunately, a license cannot do that. Here's the problem. Anyone can attach put any license file into their project repo that they want to. The text of the license file may assert that that everything in their ...

Top 50 recent answers are included