8

The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's ...


7

Yes, they do exist. For example, versions of the vim editor prior to v6.1 have a licence that required that If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are encouraged to send the maintainer a copy, including the source code ... When the maintainer asks for it (in any way) you must make your changes, including source code, available to him. ...


7

While I suggest looking at @bart-van-ingen-schenau's answer, I think the simpler (and more correct) answer is that you cannot use PDF-XChange as part of your open source project. The restriction that potential users would have to contact sales@tracker-software.com for permission, no matter how generous in it's granting, would seem to violate the first tenet ...


6

If I understand correctly, what you're concerned about is that other people will take your free software, change it in a way that makes it unreliable, and either convey it or provide it as a service to unsuspecting end-users who then assume it works just like the software they know you wrote. This is a question of brand identity, scientific implications ...


6

In general, no: once you've published your idea (whether as open source or not), it becomes part of the "prior art" and is no longer eligible to be patented. Patents are for innovation, and almost by definition something can't be innovative if it's just taking someone else's idea.


6

The PDF-Xchange software is free of cost, but it is not free in terms of freedom. The relevant portion of the license is (emphasis theirs) You may use the Free version without charge provided you are the End User and do not intend to distribute or incorporate it with or into any other product or software package intended for resale or distribution for any ...


5

If you only run the software on servers that you control, then that is not considered distribution according to the GPL license and thus you are not required to publish your source code. If you give the binaries to others to run on their servers, then you are distributing the software and you need to observe the restrictions of the GPL license. That means ...


5

There is no Open Source licence. see extract from definition https://opensource.org/osd Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. However did you know that this does not mean that people have permission to edit your ...


5

The GFDL is mostly intended for books or larger written documents like manuals – it is literally a Free Documentation License. The license has unique provisions like that some sections can be marked as non-modifiable, or that certain attributions have to be shown on the cover of a book. All of this is difficult or impossible to apply to an infographic. In ...


5

An alternative thought: use an open-source license instead. Creative Commons licenses are intended for more "traditional" creative works, and are not intended for software. While they can certainly be applied to software, they weren't designed with it in mind, which raises a few domain-specific issues - and this is one of them. Most open-source licenses ...


5

I would strongly advise against using any v1.0 Creative Commons license, since the most recent iteration is v4.0, and has made many improvements to clarity and enforceability (especially in varied international contexts). Furthermore, Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) should suit you just fine. CC BY-SA's attribution requirement in Section 3(a)(1)(A) ...


5

What would be a suitable license for this situation? The license that comes closest to your desires seems to be the Apache 2.0 license. It is a permissive license that allows derived works to be distributed under different terms than your template and it has a mechanism for handling attribution notices. The license does have a requirement that if different ...


4

Besides the trademark protection that is explained in the answer from @MadHatter, the (A)GPL license also allows you to place certain additional terms. One of those allowed additional terms is c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different ...


4

Note: I'm not a license expert. The following answer is based on general knowledge of the GPL and LGPL and the LGPL text as found here. The section of the license provided in the question refers to works that don't contain derivatives of the LGPL library. For example, if I made a sorting library and you made an application for creating lists by reading file ...


4

(1) If you hold the copyright to the GPL code, then you are not bound by the GPL license. You are free to also license that code snippet under CC-BY-whatever (dual-licensing). No formal mechanisms are needed, you can just write your blog post with the code snippets. (2) If you do not hold the copyright, then you have to abide by the GPL license. The GPL ...


4

Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well. The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of ...


4

This question seems to me to sit at the intersection of two sets of community norms: the scientific community's reproducibility and openness requirements, and the free software community's licensing requirements (the four freedoms). I'm familiar with the scientific community's desire for reproducibility, and note with happiness your footnote that suggests ...


4

This cannot be done via any free or open source license. The Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition requires The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). and the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition requires 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone ...


4

We have a question here from someone who is opposed to the current idea of copyright and wanted a license (s)he could combine with ordinary copyright to simulate the effects of his/her view of how copyright should work. It wasn't really possible to satisfy him/her, because of an underlying problem: when you take a system designed to achieve certain ends ...


4

As has already been discussed here, the main reason for not using CC licences for software is that they fail to distinguish between the source and executable ("object code") forms of a work. There are a number of ways of making this distinction, but one I find useful is that the source form is easy to edit, but hard to use, while the executable form is easy ...


4

The translations are usually a part of the programme and translations hardly fit another context. So that's a good reason to license them under the same terms as the rest - and it saves you licensing troubles. Graphics assets often are treated differently as they might both come from different sources as well be used in entirely different context. ...


3

Consulting documentation and using that documentation to create your own work does not mean you are "creating a work based on the documentation." Let's look at the example you have asked about. The documentation explains how to use the makeStyles function of a component which you have included. The component itself, which has its own code, and its own files,...


3

Your code either is derivative of GPLv3 software, or it is not. If it is derivative you can only publish your code under the GPLv3 as well, if it isn't derivative you can do whatever you want. It is not entirely clear whether your software would be derivative of the Emacs Orgmode implementation. Implementing the same file format does not render your ...


3

Before going too far, I suggest you review the license for the library you are using. Sometimes these licenses impose restrictions on how they can be used with open source. For example, a library may say you can't use it with GPL projects. Even if the license doesn't impose any restrictions, I recommend you look at a permissive license (like MIT or Apache ...


3

There is no such license. Instead of looking for a particular license, it might be better to look at a curated selection of free software. Debian is notable for rigorously checking the licensing of any software they package. From a legal perspective, the problem is that an open source license is generally just an unilateral grant of rights from the author ...


3

Yes, a number of licenses explicitly allow reasonable attribution notices that must be preserved. The Apache 2 license has the concept of a NOTICE file that must be made available to users, but not necessarily in a prominent place. It is sufficient to show them “wherever such third-party notices normally appear”. The GPLv3 has a mechanism for Additional ...


3

If a software has no license attached, that would be the default: all rights are reserved, and no one else can legally make a copy. In practice this won't quite work because many people think “it's on the internet = it's free”, but there's no good way to prevent that misconception. There are some licenses that make this more explicit, for example Microsoft's ...


3

Firstly, welcome to OpenSource.SE, and thanks for a very nicely-written first question. I'm aware that not everyone likes it, but it gets a +1 from me. Your basic problem is that free licences are incompatible with restrictions on commercial use. The issue is discussed here, in other OS.SE questions, and in the GPL FAQ, but it boils down to the idea that ...


3

If it is Free Software, getting the source and removing the "buy me" nag should trivial to do, quickly followed by a new github with the code posted. To do what you want, you simply have a not too nagging screen asking for donations and offering commercial support or wishlist work (I have $25 and wish there was a keyboard short cut for foo). You'll want ...


3

The most obvious problem with this plan is that by including GPL-licensed code alongside code under a GPL-incompatible license, you might make it impossible for anyone else to distribute the software. As far as my legal knowledge extend, downstream recipients may only distribute a work that includes your GPL-licensed code if they distribute the overall work ...


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