New answers tagged

2

Currently, M doesn't have a valid license. By removing the license information when the copy was made the author of M violated your copyrights. You are fully within your rights to request from the author of M to restore the copyright/license information as it existed at the time of the copy. When the license violation of M has been rectified, you can take ...


4

I don't really like the UNLICENSE, because I am not 100% convinced that that license does exactly what was intended in jurisdictions that don't allow you to dedicate your work into the public domain1. The MIT license explicitly allow sublicensing of the work, so my recommendation would be to go that route. Then you can, in the file that you borrowed from ...


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)


3

Regarding the copyright, copyright automatically goes to the person (or organization) that wrote the code. You will own the copyright of all the code you write (unless you have a contract that says otherwise), but you will not own the copyrights on code written by others. And it doesn't matter if those others contributed directly to your project or if they ...


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 ...


3

With respect to my colleague, I disagree with a lot of his answer. The core analysis I think is correct, not least because it comes straight from the GPL FAQ: if the plugin is tightly coupled to the main body of code, the whole (application and plugin) is a single work, which is a derivative of (amongst other things) the plugin; if not, then not. Note that ...


0

If you do not wish to disclose your sources for the MIT-licensed application, then it would be really helpful to everybody to make that intention clear by changing the license of the application to a closed-source license. The licensing status of your application in combination with a GPL plugin depends very much on how the two interact. If the application ...


Top 50 recent answers are included