27

Your question suggests that you regard copyrights as property rights. This is a completely understandable misconception - big content creators push this agenda quite hard - but it is a misconception. Copyright is instead a system of time-limited monopolies on certain acts which the law grants to copyright holders for the ultimate purpose of encouraging ...


10

If downstream users of your project distribute it without including attribution for the CC-BY-licensed work, they are in violation of the terms of that CC-BY-licensed work. This is an obligation that copyright holder of the work has asked for as part of allowing redistribution of their copyrighted work. If someone redistributes the work without meeting that ...


8

The comments hit on a lot of these points, but let me try to provide a more comprehensive response. Unless you have a strong reason to do so (and character count of your file header comments is not a strong reason), you should stick with one of the well-known software licenses. Your header just needs to mention the license that it is covered under and you ...


8

Section 4(c) lists the only obligations you have with regards to copyright notices: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; If there are zero of ...


7

In principle, you can deduplicate the licensing terms. However, this is most appropriate for lengthy licenses with a clear name, e.g. Apache-2.0 or the GPL licenses. These are designed to be kept in a separate files. For shorter licenses in the MIT or BSD families, there might be small differences that you would technically have to preserve. If you want to ...


6

It's simple: if you distribute software, you have to abide by the licenses. If you thus sell a device with different software on it, you have to abide by all the licenses concurrently, that includes the OS. Usually includes at least making available the copyright / credits and license information to the user in some way. For copy-left licensed software (thus ...


6

There is no universal rule. You have to file a bug and ask. In general, it is probably safest to assume that the most restrictive or most specific license terms apply, unless there is some indication that the author intended to dual-license (i.e. that they wanted to let you choose which license terms to follow). In this case, that means you're probably ...


5

Yes, it's OK to not have any license file. Without any license, the default is that all rights are reserved. If someone other than the author wants to use this code, they have the obligation of obtaining a valid license. For open source projects, there are a variety of conventions to unambiguously indicate licenses. For example: separate files named like ...


5

If a software is distributed under several different licenses, then you are usually allowed to choose which license offer you take up; you then have to abide by all the terms and conditions of the license - but not necessarily by all of the other license offer you did not take. This is common for dual-licensed software where one form is a copyleft licensed (...


5

I would strongly suggest that compliance-related information is immediately accessible, without requiring a log in. This includes documents such as your contact details, your terms of service, your privacy policy, and yes, open source attributions. The intent of most open source licenses is that you have to at least attribute the various open source ...


4

You have taken some code licensed to you under Apache2 and made a derivative work implementing an API. You intend to run a single instance of this work on your own server so that others can interact with it. You wish to know what your licence obligations are. Basically, as I read it, you have nearly none. All the obligations of Apache2, including ...


4

Apache Cordova is under the Apache-2.0 license. This means that when building an app with Cordova: you MUST give recipients a copy of the Apache license you MUST NOT remove the existing license notices for Cordova in the Cordova source code you MUST give recipients a copy of the NOTICE file, if it exists (it does) Here, a recipient is anyone who receives a ...


3

If you are the sole copyright holder, then the answer is very simple: You are not bound by any license, so you are allowed to do anything you want including those things that most licenses forbid. If you are not the sole copyright holder (e.g. you accepted contributions from others), then things become more complicated but not all is lost. If there are only ...


3

A license is GPL-compatible if it allows you to do everything that the GPL allows you to do, and if the license doesn't impose requirements or conditions other than those which the GPL also has or allows. Both of the licenses you've shown are permissive licenses and seem open source, similar to the MIT or BSD licenses. They seem to provide you with the ...


3

Yes. There virtually is little other choice of making the users aware of an embedded device without any interface. Thus if you do as you suggest you should be on the safe side to fulifll the obligations from the license. When you distribute update packages they will probably come as a zip file or similar which includes the actual binary, maybe an installer, ...


3

The clearest way to indicate that your (former?) workplace has no copyright interest in the later changes is indeed to add a new copyright notice with only your name on it for those later changes. If you and your workplace worked on the library from 2018 to 2020 and you continued on your own in 2020, the copyright notices at the top of the file(s) could look ...


3

Licencing a piece of code is as simple as that: just state that the code is under the license, and you're done. Usually it's a good idea to add author information, too. The whole point of the exercise is that any other person can unambiguously know the origin of the code and the license (thus permissions granted) for its usage. There is no formal requirement....


3

The GPL (v2 in this case, but v3 contains similar language) allows you to copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that [... you] cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all ...


2

Have I read this correctly? Obviously it's not very fair, either to the original authors or software users, to omit that information, but it seems like it would be legal to do so? Yes, you have read it correctly and it is indeed legal to omit mentioning which third-party code a particular license statement refers to (assuming the project's is not referenced ...


2

It's as simple as that. All you need to do is declare the license you are using and add a copy of that license to the source repository. Note that for most licenses, you'll also need to specify the copyright holder and the year the copyright took effect in the licsece's body.


2

If you're shipping the dependencies, then you must fulfil their license terms, such as including the license notices with your software. How to do this properly depends on the context of your software. E.g. the license notices might be included in documentation files like Python does, or a software with a GUI might show them in an info panel like most web ...


2

As mentioned in the comments, if the data is part of the code the copyleft may apply. But that is rather a gray area because including the data would not necessarily imply a derivative work. Better ask the original author and/or a lawyer :D If you just pull the data in runtime, you are perfectly fine with any license otherwise possible. That's what CC is for!...


2

There is no schematic rule which fits all. Do something which fulfills the license terms and fits the way you distribute your project. E.g. the MIT license requires The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The GPL suggests If the program does terminal interaction, make ...


2

You must comply with the licenses of all the software that you distribute. Must I include the license statement of every library in the bundle? Yes, if that is required by a license in your bundle. Most open source licenses including MIT, LGPL, GPL require this. Would it be sufficient to only have the license files in the public repo? No, most licenses ...


2

It sounds to me as if you want AGPLv3. A requirement that the Original Developer is attributed in distributions AGPLv3 s4 provides that "You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice", so the ...


1

The more I think about this question, the more I think you have a bigger problem than simply I have no right to redistribute these logos under a free licence. I think the real problem is that you have no right to redistribute them at all. They are, as you point out, copyright images. I can see nothing inherent in the nature of a favicon that grants you ...


1

And most importantly in a comment at the beginning of the .html and .js files (I have only one for each) Each file that you copied third-party code into must indeed contain a comment at the beginning with the copyright and permission notices for all the copied code, in addition to the copyright and permission notices for your own code. In principle, that is ...


1

Does the newly created files will be owned by the original copyright holder(because he owns the whole repository), or the files that I created will be owned by me. Each author owns the copyright in each element of protectable expression that they authored, until or unless they assign that right to someone else. In case I will be the owner of all the files ...


1

There is a difference between a font software and a typeface. A typeface is the design of a font, and a font software is the digital realization of that design, usually in the form of a ttf/otf file. Also note that "Font Software" is a defined term in the OFL license. As to question two, there may be a difference depending on whether you are ...


1

If you are running your web app (as a service) on your own server (or a server under your control) regardless if public or in-house, then you are not actually distributing/publishing anything, you are just offering the service. Under the MIT license if you are not distributing the code then you have no obligations. (under AGPL license it would be very ...


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