19

Generally, yes, if you hold the copyright to some code, you may issue simultaneous licenses for others to make use of that code under different terms. But the code I write would be helpful for my work (in fact my motivation for writing it is to help at work, but I am being careful to avoid writing it in a professional capacity as I know that this sometimes ...


17

There is no open source license that would satisfy these requirements because it goes against the fundamental principles of Software Freedom and the Open Source Definition. The freedom to create (competing) forks is essential: free software should not be shackled to a particular maintainer. A milder version of your license situation could be possible though: ...


11

We already have a question here about distributing the compiled binary form of a piece of proprietary software under an MIT licence. As we said there, it's basically formalised freeware: the binary can be freely distributed (and in principle, freely modified, for all the good it will do you) but it doesn't come with source. The use of the MIT licence for ...


10

The GPL FAQ is fairly clear: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission ...


9

As long as you are the only contributor, yes. However, the nature of Open Source is that it attracts contributions from other people. One option is to simply refuse contributions. If people want changes, they have to fork the project. Alternatively, you can maintain two versions, one under GPL and one for the company. For big contributions, it is easy. You ...


6

A clear 'yes', your reasoning is sound in its entirety. You are the (sole) author, you decide who gets the software under which license. If that means that everyone gets it under GPL and your employer under a special license with additional rights (and possibly obligations), that's totally in your power to do. You don't give any indication for this, so it ...


6

Is there a Software licenses that force contribution back to the original project only for commercial use? Yes, but it would not be an open source license because this is a clear violation of the "no discrimination against fields of endeavor" clause: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of ...


4

It is clear to me that any fork of dwm must also be licensed under an MIT/X-compatible license That is not, in fact, clear. Firstly, if you read this question you'll see that there is quite a body of opinion that says it's perfectly acceptable to change the licence conditions on code if it was shared with you on terms that do not forbid that. The copyleft ...


4

If you bundle a browser (or one of its components, such as the gecko engine) as part of your application or force the user to install it, it's a dependency like any other component your application might use. Otherwise, it's not a dependency, at least not in the traditional sense - people who use the application can decide what browser to install, or, in ...


4

It having been said that this question admits of an answer, it'd better have one. That said, questions which ask for lists of offsite resources are off-topic, so I'll answer accordingly. You ask: Can music be open sourced the same way code is open sourced, as in give it a MIT license or similar so that others can use, improve and build on your music? Yes,...


2

Your other way to phrase the question isn't equivalent to the first. If you want to force commercial users to not modify your software at all, that's impossible. If you want to force commercial users to make their changes available to the original project, that is possible. You can do this by dual licensing. Software is open-source as long as it's available ...


2

Yes, you can do that. Software licensed under a BSD-3-clause software is compatible with the GPL license. As such you are allowed to distribute it under GPL v3. That includes that you add a copyright notice to the file - especially if you make modifications to the file (otherwise it would IMHO be bad style, but still not forbidden). Mind to adhere to the BSD-...


2

Apps usually have a separate screen where they collect license and attribution notices. If your app has a settings screen, you could add an “about” section where you mention yourself and also link to the screen with open source libraries. Here's the Settings > About screen on the Todoist Android app, which is closed source: Description: The “About” ...


1

Without the agreement of Suckless, it is clear to me that any fork of dwm must also be licensed under an MIT/X-compatible license. As the MIT/X license also gives recipients the right to sublicense the work, it is almost trivial to meet that requirement. The only licenses that would be incompatible are what I would call The One That Rules Them All licenses: ...


1

So having thought about this, I should be clear how I'm coming at the answer. We already have a pair of questions that address the issue of whether dynamic linking creates derivative works; one for those who think it does, and one for those who think it doesn't. Both note that the question remains unsettled, but I firmly believe that dynamic linking does ...


1

May I create a multi-platform nugget-package which contains a compiled version of LGPL library (OpenAL) and add it to the official nugget repository? The LGPL license does not forbid this, but there might be additional considerations. It would be best if the maintainers of that OpenAL implementation make such an official release in the nugget repository, or ...


1

That sounds like a case of a programme (your editor) and data it processes (the documentation). That's two pieces which can work independently and which can be distributed indpendently and would be bundled for convenience reasons in the case you describe. Concerning bundling, the different parts can have different licenses according to common concensus, if ...


1

I am being careful to avoid writing it in a professional capacity as I know that this sometimes can cede the copyright to my employer My question is: Am I free to give an exception in this case, given that I hold the copyright for this program? Either explicitly, or by simply never mentioning that the software is free in the first place. If you want to ...


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