22
Yes, you can distribute your software without making the source code public and without giving recipients the right to make changes to your software.
The LGPL license explicitly allows such usages of libraries/packages released under that license.
When using an LGPL library/package like PySide2, your obligations are
to allow and make it possible that ...
15
You've already got the answer that LGPL libraries can be used in commercial software. So far, so good. There's more to this than meets the eye, though.
The thing is, PySide2 is for using the Qt framework with Python programs.
Besides the LGPL license for PySide2, you'll have to make sure that you comply with the Qt licensing terms.
The Qt licensing ...
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 ...
4
Just keep the licenses of the files as-is.
Make a clear statement and indication that separate licenses and attribution apply to the files used for regression tests as indicated in either the files respectively (I'd choose that) or a separate file you maintain where you state license and attribution by file.
Of course you may not violate the terms of ...
4
Could the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3 be circumvented by providing software separately?
Let's look at this in more detail. We have a platform vendor PV which will only allow signed software to run on the platform. The platform is a User Product in the sense of the GPLv3. And we have a software vendor SV which wants to supply software that runs on the platform. However, SV's software is subject to GPLv3.
If SV gives the software to PV which ...
3
If you don't want the company gain your knowledge and ideas, you should not help them get it less tell it explicitly to them before you sell it yourself. From their pov they might actually think they are doing you a favour in now offering you a more polished (?) version of the solution with support.
2
In the meantime, the project has been relicensed under MIT and patent grants were removed.
The original PATENTS file is here:
https://github.com/facebook/draft-js/commit/585af35c3a8c31fefb64bc884d4001faa96544d3#diff-7373d27f0ea94a5b649f893e20fffeda
Curiously, the MIT licence does not provide patent protection for contributors. So this seems to be a step ...
2
Yes, you may do this. I would summarize your obligations as
Ensure recipients of your software are given or offered the modified library code
Ensure that recipients can rebuild your software using a further modified version of the library. This generally means offering the at least the compiled, linkable object code of your own application code alongside ...
1
If the requirements of the client application are just that there needs to be an external program that can be invoked with a two numbers as input and that produces a few numbers as output, then those requirements are generic enough that the client application and the PARI/GP script will be considered to be separate works for copyright purposes. This means ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
