New answers tagged

1

if I switch my main application to use Autoconf or Libtool, then I can bundle GPL code under proprietary terms? No, unless in the very unlikely case that the specific GPL code in question grants you that right as its own special exception. Only someone who controls the rights to a given project can offer you license terms for that project, no matter what ...


5

No As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. This paragraph refers to the one file it is found in - not the entire software product you ...


32

The exception says that “you may include it”, where it is the build scripts generated by autoconf. This is not a broad GPL exception that would apply to any GPL-licensed software. The autotools authors are not the copyright holders of other GPL-licensed software and are therefore not authorized to issue such exceptions. Autoconf needs such an exception for ...


1

If your software does't require GCC to work (except for compiling source), you may distribute GCC with source or even binaries without licensing your app under GNU GPL, but you must send a source code and GNU GPL . Your app won't be licensed under GNU GPL (if you don't want), because it's independent program, so placing it with GCC is aggregation, not ...


0

If you fork this project, you can add MIT license for your changes and your code. The original code will be licensed under ISC license. If using ISC license is the problem for you, I recommend to add MIT license as "LICENSE" and ISC License in "NOTICE". But it's nonsense and it makes using the code more complicated.


1

You cannot change the license of a project for which you are not the sole copyright holder, in the sense that you could replace the license with another. The ISC license is permissive though. So you can add your own changes under a license of your choice, for example under the MIT license. The software in question would then contain both the ISC and MIT ...


0

Yes, e.g. a lawyer can create a tools to build licenses from blocks text. It may license you to build one license, or maybe more licenses, including also your address or the court which should handle disputes. Movies, musics have similar "templates". If you go to a lawyer to create a new license, you may get a restriction on the use (just for one ...


6

All (non-trivial) licenses are copyrighted so any use you make of them is subject to the terms under which they are released. For example, the GNU GPL v3 explicitly states: Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. https://fsf.org/ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. ...


9

As jpa notes, there is no license here. The notice you've quoted grants no right to redistribute the code, with or without modification. (And yes, I checked the full comment at the top of the original file; there's no license grant there either.) One could possibly try to read an implied license to "use" the code, in some manner such that "...


24

This is not a license, as it grants no rights. By default all works are copyrighted and their allowed use is limited unless the rights owner gives you further permissions. Licenses grant further permissions and contain language such as "Permission is hereby granted -- subject to the following conditions --" or "Redistribution and use -- are ...


12

In a corporate environment I would advise my colleagues not to use this code for the reason that it is an unconventional license and the legal interpretation is not clear. This would even be in case it is a transitive dependency. You might want to keep this in mind if you plan to use this code in software which would be used by corporations. (This is on top ...


19

For (1), the only answer is "nobody knows" (apart from possibly the person who wrote the license). Given that, I would therefore be conservative and assume that it is a mandatory requirement. (2) and (3) are a very good indication of why an open source license (as defined by the OSI) cannot include such a requirement; the normal example here is the ...


5

Your assumption is wrong. You need to comply with the entire language of the Apache license, and for your case I recommend you carefully read Section 4. An easy way to comply with the requirements is to have an 'About' page in your app, where you list all of the information related to the libraries you are using, in accordance with the list included in ...


0

If it's not conveyed to end users outside your organization, you don't need any legal information. (L)GPL gives you the right to do anything as long as it counts as "private use."


4

As far as I know, LGPL mandates that the respective licenses are featured in file and in app visual representation. It doesn't say that exactly. LGPL-2.1 says: You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the library is used in it. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must ...


-3

As far as I know, LGPL mandates that the respective licenses are featured in file and in app visual representation. On Linux, the same executable can act as a command line application, a GUI application, or some web service. For example, RefPerSys. And I believe the LGPL does not mandate showing licensing info at every run. GCC does not do so. It can accept ...


11

Compliance stuff isn't a nice-to-have feature. The LGPL provides no exceptions for beta releases. However, the LGPL is technology-neutral and does not directly require you to implement a GUI. You must reasonable notices about the open source components that you use. How to do this depends on the nature of your software. For a graphical application: Moving ...


1

Many people are considering the ISC license and the MIT license as equivalent w.r.t. the rights, conditions and disclaimer. I am a subscriber to that position. You can find respective opinions here and here. Others mention that there is a distinct difference, as MIT mentions 'sublicensing' while ISC does not mention it. However, the ISC License states "...


2

OSI has a definition of 'permissive' A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open source license — one that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivative works. and a definition of 'copyleft' "Copyleft" refers to licenses that allow derivative works but require them to use the ...


0

As I understand them, the two terms "copyleft license" and "permissive license" are not exclusive. A "permissive license" is any license which permits use without specific individual permission from the user CC-By and CC-0 are permissive licenses, because they permit people to reuse the content without directly askign for ...


Top 50 recent answers are included