New answers tagged

3

We have to separate the license terms from the license itself, and from other notice requirements. The license terms are about what the recipient is allowed to do with the covered work. The license says “this work is covered by those license terms”. There might be other notices. Copyright notices are usually not legally necessary, but provide nice ...


1

No, the MPL has a per-file copyleft, so any file that does not include MPL material does not need the notice. You quote: You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code. Where Source Code is the source form of Covered Code: "Source Code" means the preferred form of the Covered Code for making modifications to it, ...


2

The lack of clarity around the SSPL's definition of a “service” is part of the reason why this isn't a good license. The SSPL does provide a definition, but it might have a surprising scope. Below, I first recap some discussion on this definition, and then try to apply the SSPL's definition to your scenarios. During the OSI license-review process of the SPPL,...


3

Does the fact that I sign and distribute runtime & SDK used to write the component oblige me to change the component's license to MIT / Apache2? No, software under Apache 2 or MIT/Expat/X11 licenses may be used within software under virtually any license. These are "permissive" licenses which means they don't impose many requirements (other ...


Top 50 recent answers are included