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 ...


8

Requiring people to contribute their changes back to the original project is a bit of a problem point for licenses. For open-source license, such a requirement fails the "desert island test" and prevent the license from being an open-source license. The desert island test means that a group of people on a desert island with no way of contacting the outside ...


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 ...


7

Making your software available under free and open source terms means the legal terms under which you make your software available meet certain standards (namely, the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI's Open Source Definition). Those definitions allow commercial reuse/distribution, so any legal terms that don't allow commercial reuse will not fall within the ...


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 ...


6

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 ...


6

With respect to my colleague Bart, a licence that "encourages" users to contribute back would not fail the desert island test: that is engaged when the licence requires such contribution or communication. The example Debian quote in the linked page refers to an author who says "you must hereby send me your changes"; note "must". A licence that asks the ...


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

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

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

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 ...


4

I recently worked with the team at GitHub to provide more information about 0BSD. More info about Landly's 0BSD now appears on choosealicense.com and, subsequently, will appear on GitHub license drop-downs (takes time). Beyond that you can also find more info about 0BSD on Wiki which I added after you asked this question. Other places to seek information ...


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

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

(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

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 ...


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

Am I allowed to distribute the project for money under this license? Yes. However, if you distribute/sell binaries, then you may not charge extra for the source code. And, as the MPL license is a weak copyleft license, you are giving the users of your library also the right to distribute it further, which means that selling copies of the software is not ...


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

As you point out, the EDLv1 is BSD-like (in fact, it's a copy of 3-clause BSD with names changed in clause 3 and the disclaimer), so your rights and obligations are pretty simply stated in clauses one and two. IANAL/IANYL, but it seems to me that you may use modified mosquito within your organisation, and you may sell it without, and in neither case will ...


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. ...


4

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 ...


4

The CC BY-NC license is most likely not the license you want if you are accepting contributions from others and you are considering publishing the work also as a physical book. As soon as there are multiple copyright holders to a work, all of them are bound by the license terms under which the contributions were made (which is typically the same license ...


4

If there is such a license, it would not be an open-source license. Such a license would likely fail the Desert Island Test Can a group of people exercise their rights under the license, even if they have no way of communicating with you. Besides that, a copyright license is not the best way to motivate people to contribute bug reports/feature requests/...


4

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. GPL is a copyleft license. It means that you legally obliged to distribute derivative work under the same or equivalent license (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works for instance). LGPL is a more relaxed license in this regard and allows ...


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,...


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