38

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any ...


24

For the Apache 2.0 License, there is both the legal code, and what you need to "apply" the license to the work in question. Having a license file provides the legal code. That's great, but it doesn't tell me the specifics... does that license really apply here? When did the license take effect? The Apache page goes on to instruct you how to place it in ...


18

The short answer is no. You cannot remove a BSD license notice, otherwise you are no longer licensed per the BSD (many variants) that all share the essential requirement to retain the copyright and license/notice texts in source and/or binaries. If you look at a BSD variant text from wikipedia: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above ...


14

Substantial portion is a legal term. Its exact definition will depend on jurisdiction, be subject to interpretation and possibly including subjective analyses. When in doubt, ask a lawyer. To err on the safe side, assume that it applies to any portion, no matter the size. To give you a random example, here's what Wikipedia has to say for Canadian copyright ...


14

The copyright line isn't actually part of the license, it's a separate entity. So changing that doesn't change the license. In fact "©" is the correct form, so that change at least counts as an improvement in my book. Beyond that though I'd stick to the canonical form of the license if there is one. The MIT license itself has many slight variants, so the ...


10

No, just because the software is hosted on SourceForge does not mean that it is open source. In the United States (and many other countries), works are protected by copyright and the author must grant specific licenses. A work that is uploaded to SourceForge without a specific license granted is protected by copyright. However, unlike GitHub, SourceForge ...


10

One solution is to include the license files and mention them in comments: This code is licensed under the MIT License <code here> Another brainfuck-specific solution is to include the license terms inside of a loop at the beginning of the program (which will not execute, because the value at the start of the tape is 0, so the loop will be skipped): ...


10

No, you are not allowed to change the copyright notice. Indeed, the license text states pretty clearly: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. But you are allowed to add a copyright notice. If you want to keep the MIT license, which is what I would advise you to do, ...


9

Copyright and open source are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most open-source licenses depend on copyright in order to function properly. The GPL comes most readily to mind: you couldn't enforce the requirement to share-alike if copyright didn't let the author decide who may or may not copy the work. But even something as simple as an MIT-style attribution ...


9

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has a law that explicitly states that a license notice must be included in each file, or conversely that it need not be included in each file. In all countries that have ratified the Berne convention, all works are subject to copyright, whether they include a copyright notice or not. (A copyright notice may help, ...


9

Is this legal to do such modification? Answer no. New question: Can you do anything against this? On court: Yes, if you have registered it or at least send a postal copy to yourself. Actually it could be that the person intends to register copyright on his/her own and even sue you for copyright infringement... could. On GitHub directly: Yes: File a DMCA ...


8

The MIT license is a very permissive license, and allows re-licensing. The license doesn't require you at all to to keep the attribution line in any of the files, but it's kind of a dick move to remove it straight away. Keeping it there also makes it easier for re-users to find out who the copyright belongs to - though for a license as permissive as the MIT ...


7

I'm surprised this question doesn't come up more often. It's a tricky issue, and one that is highly open to interpretation. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. There is not a lot of specific guidance on this issue, but a well-researched overview of the topic was published by The International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, titled "Open source ...


7

The US Copyright Office has this to say about the positioning of copyright notices (37 C.F.R. § 202.2): (c) Methods of affixation and positions of the copyright notice on various types of works— [...] (7) Works reproduced in machine-readable copies. For works reproduced in machine-readable copies, each of the following constitutes an example of ...


7

What is the creative work that the developers contributed to? Is every file an independent creative work for the purpose of copyright? Or does a software constituted from multiple files present a single and indivisible creative work? In general, consensus seems to be that software copyright can be considered in a very fine grained manner, down to individual ...


6

There are no hard-and-fast rules on how to show this information. The bottom line is to make sure recipients can easily figure out which files are under which license. You also need to preserve copyright notices, where required. This is a common requirement of many licenses, but most licenses do not dictate where those notices are kept, only that, again, ...


6

You can certainly try. Instead of including the entire license, you could have this: Copyright (c) 2016 Thomas Owens. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under the terms of the MIT license. For a copy, see <https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>. In theory (IANAL), this should stand up in court, since you're still making it pretty obvious how ...


6

It is recommended in many places, including by the license writers, to include the license header as well as the license file. Some reasons for this are: it clearly demonstrates what the license applies to it points to the full license The license file itself can then contain solely the license, without having to list everything it applies to.


6

Quotations are permitted by exceptions and limitations to copyright (e.g. "fair use" in the USA), and accounted for my sec. 2(a)(2) in the CC licenses, which says: Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and ...


6

Free software and open source licenses Free software and open source licenses seek to grant additional rights, beyond those granted by copyright law. Strictly speaking, such licenses cover the acts of distributing and modifying software, not directly the act of using it. Copyright law controls who can distribute and modify software; if you obtain software ...


6

You can always note the fact that, when the pointer points at a zero cell, the while loop skips its contents. So, if you know for a fact that the current cell is zero, you can include a comment like this: [This is a "cat" program, which outputs all of its input.] ,[.,] > [This program expects 0 to be returned on end-of-input.] [Do note that the brackets [...


6

According to Richard Stallman's page on combining licenses, "In a combination of programs under lax licenses, each part carries the license it came with. When the code is merged to the point that the parts can't be distinguished any more, that merged code should carry all the licenses of the merged parts. Since all the licenses are lax anyway, this causes no ...


6

There are multiple ways how the licensing can be made machine-readable in HTML documents. A consumer (e.g., a search engine) might support only some (or none) of them. Two popular ways: Link type: license HTML5 defines the license link type. This always specifies the license for the main content of the document. So it’s not possible to use this if only ...


6

This is a misunderstanding. The previous paragraphs talk about the requirements for the GPL and LGPL. Since the LGPLv3 is written as the GPL plus a set of extra permissions, you need to include both COPYING for the GPL and COPYING.LESSER for the LGPL additions. In contrast, the AGPL is independent from the GPL and is contained in a single license text. So ...


6

You could base yourself on the ISC license to create a new license but you should call it differently. Adding conditions to an existing license while keeping the same name is only creating confusion and you should not be surprised then that people do not respect the additional conditions. Furthermore you shouldn't use the term "open source" or "free ...


6

The Artistic License has two goals: Ensure that the original author has some control over the further development of their work. Be an extremely permissive license. It is commonly used in the Perl ecosystem. It is not generally recommended outside of that context. You have correctly noted that it is allowed to distribute modified versions in compiled form ...


6

No example is required, as the GPL itself tells you how to do it, down at the bottom in the section entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs". In short, they recommend you include your copyright notice and three short paragraphs at the beginning of each source file, and a copy of the entire GPL somewhere in the source tree.


6

Whilst IANAL/IANYL, and no developer, it seems to me that the question boils down to "is it a licence violation to offer a repository from which someone could, with some effort, extract a non-licence-compliant subset of the code"? I would argue that it isn't. With enough care, it's possible to extract a non-compliant version of code from most repositories. ...


5

You're overthinking it. The license preamble clearly states that JointJS is licensed under MPL. It does not say that anything else is licensed under MPL therefore the other stuff is "copyright all rights reserved" as per standard copyright law. The answer will hinge on weather or not a developer could reasonably think the code is part of JointJS. Most ...


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