Hot answers tagged

47

The FSF believes, in the jurisdictions they have considered, that the transfer of GPL-licensed software by an employer to an employee, for the fulfillment of their responsibilities as an agent of the employer, does not constitute distribution, so any conditions that GPL imposes on distribution do not apply: Is making and using multiple copies within one ...


34

No Open Source license does that. Even the GNU GPL license allows one program to interact with another non-free program via pipes, sockets, streams etc. While the licenses can't do this, there are Linux distributions where the distribution creators make a commitment to only including free software, for example the Debian main package repository.


25

The crucial statement there is "terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation". So yes, if the FSF should decide that a future version of the GPL should look more like a BSD-style license, a software released under GPL v3+ would then be eligible to be distributed under that newer version and exercise the ...


21

If code is licensed strictly under a specific version of the GNU GPL, future versions have no effect for that specifically-licensed code. For code that is licensed under "version 3 or any later version," then recipients could choose to apply (a possibly more permissive) GPLv4, whenever one comes into existence, and enjoy whatever permissive terms ...


18

Which licenses give me a guarantee that a software I'm installing is completely open-source, free of closed-source dependencies or components? Unfortunately, a license cannot do that. Here's the problem. Anyone can attach put any license file into their project repo that they want to. The text of the license file may assert that that everything in their ...


9

If you receive an open source application from your employer, it hasn't been distributed to you, but to your employer, so you haven't received any rights through that distribution. (However, I have been told that handing software to contractors might be different, so the employer should be careful). Even if you had rights, you don't have the source code. ...


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

In general, a Linux distribution does not have a single license, as it is an aggregation of various separate components. While I haven't looked at ASL specifically, taking some pretty common components across any Linux distribution: The kernel itself is licensed under GPL v2 only. The core utilities are under GPL v3 or any later version. Python is under the ...


8

Different components of AGL have different licenses though all the ones I saw when browsing their git repository are open source. From one of the links you posted their git repo can be accessed at: https://git.automotivelinux.org/ The home page lists all available modules/components. Each component is it's own git repo. As per standard practice in open ...


7

TL/DR: Yes, Open Source licenses are valid in Turkey and nearly globally. Open Source copyright licenses are based on copyright law. While each country has its own copyright laws, there is an international agreement (the Berne Convention) in which countries have agreed to have certain commonalities in their copyright laws. Turkey is one of the signatories of ...


7

Licences do not inhere in software, they attach to software (or, to be more precise, to the recipients of software) through the act of conveyance. Which is a complex way of saying that what other licence some other person gets software under has no effect on you and the licence under which you get it. If you get libfoo under a free licence, let's say the ...


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

Yes, they can. Firstly, the kernel is licensed under GPLv2 with a syscall exception, which says that the kernel's "copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work"". So Microsoft could ...


6

Every open-source license allows commercial usage. Every open-source license has to allow commercial usage as one of the fundamental requirements is that any usage is allowed for any purpose (§6 in the linked document). As such your request for an open source license which forbids commercial usage cannot be fulfilled for this inherent contradiction. However, ...


6

In answer to the question in the title: GPLv3 (like earlier versions) is definitely triggered by such distribution, as this constitutes making copies of a copyright-protected binary, an act normally reserved to the rightsholder and his/her licensees. GPLv3 is quite clear about the terms that apply to your license to distribute, when in s2 it says "...


6

I found this: Anyone is free to access and use the deliverables of the project, and everyone is invited to contribute back to the project. This statement is found on the Join - Automotive Grade Linux page of the AGL's website. This is not a formal license; as @slebetman says, you'd have to review the LICENSE file in each repository to have legal coverage. ...


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

The very definition of "open source" as defined by the OSI is, that the software may be used by anyone for any purpose. As such, if you only use open source software which uses one of the OSI-acknowledged FLOSS licenses (e,g. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache), you are fine. The main differences in the licenses lay in the terms and conditions which apply when ...


5

What is not clear for me, is it mandatory to have the resulting product also under a permissive open source license? No, this resembles a copyleft license (in contrast to a permissive license) which allows redistribution of derivatives only under the same license. If it is not mandatory, how it differs from "do whatever you want", I mean except, ...


4

The right to produce adaptations of a copyrighted work (aka derivative works) is one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder in Berne Convention countries. The rightsholder may usually licence it to others if (s)he chooses to do so. You've read this program, then set out to produce your own program that implements the same ideas, and by your own ...


4

I did not modify any of those modules; I want to publish the .py file only (no binaries). If you will not be including copies of numpy and Matplotlib, then you need not concern yourself with their permissive licenses. Neither license imposes restrictions on derivative works such as your script. To see this, let's start by walking through the BSD license: ...


4

You will be fine. Each of these images will have their own license, however as long as you meet the conditions (i.e. for CC: proper attribution, non-commercial use if -nc, etc.) it's not an issue. but you download them one by one, not all as a whole. If you're providing a separate download (i.e. you are splitting images that were previously distributed ...


4

The FSF says of the JSON License: This ["not-for-evil" term] is a restriction on usage and thus conflicts with freedom 0. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. Thus, the license is nonfree. Similarly it is not open source because it conflicts with term 6 of the Open Source Definition, "No Discrimination Against ...


4

The title says: Is it possible that a future GPL version removes copyleft? When we read this together with the body, we find two closely related interpretations: Is it possible that a future GPL version (say v4) is a non-copyleft licence? Is it possible that GPLv4 will make works already licenced under GPLv2 or GPLv3 “non-copyleft” as well? The first ...


4

From a legal viewpoint, it is entirely correct to have the license text in the file that is being licensed itself. If you received the file like that, then that is another reason to keep the license text there. If you have a readme file in your project where you state something about the license of the project, you could add a short paragraph there that you ...


3

In theory you can, and some projects use a CC-NC license for that reason. But it's not a very good idea. First, the CC-NC license is NOT Open Source. While it provides some user freedoms, it does not provide essential software freedoms like the ability to use the software for any purpose. I understand that freedom is explicitly not your goal, but it's ...


3

Yes, GCC macros and linker variables are covered by the GCC Runtime Library Exception, see [...] in this way, the header files and runtime libraries covered by this Exception. There are no clues that the built-in libraries should not be part of the exceptions.


3

Since the images themselves are seperate works, you can do that.


3

GCC has a special exception that doesn't force you to use GPL for programs compiled with GCC Correct. Its output does not have to be under the GPL. Similarly: an image created with Photoshop doesn't need to follow the license that Photoshop is distributed under, even if fancy filters are used a picture taken and edited with an Apple iPhone isn't owned by ...


3

It depends a bit on how your program and the GPL program communicate with each other, but most likely you can do what you want. The FSF uses the concept of communication "at arm's length" and when two programs communicate at arm's length with each other, then they are considered independent programs whose copyright licenses don't affect each other. ...


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