Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

New answers tagged

0

Although there are great ideological differences on who should be getting freedoms under a FOSS license, all those sub-communities agree that FOSS licenses should be non-discriminatory. That makes that your first requirement of only allowing licenses to be given to natural persons automatically disqualifies all recognized FOSS licenses. Another reason that ...


2

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 ...


1

@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL. Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you ...


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 ...


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 ...


-1

By law you are free to license your code as you decide to license it. No one can force you to do anything. Just be prepared to fight for your right in a court in case some FSF, FSC or some similar organisation is going to bully you. So instead ask yourself: do you have the resources to go to court? Are you a sort of person who gets easily intimidated by ...


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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included