We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
10

One of my projects is in Github and currently it does not have any license such as MIT. Therefore, it should be considered as an Open Source project by default. Sorry, but that's wrong. We have a clear analysis of the licence status of github code that has no explicit licence, and it's not open source in any way. If you want your code to be free you need ...


4

As has already been discussed here, the main reason for not using CC licences for software is that they fail to distinguish between the source and executable ("object code") forms of a work. There are a number of ways of making this distinction, but one I find useful is that the source form is easy to edit, but hard to use, while the executable form is easy ...


4

You have written an app and distributed it under the Apache 2 licence. You have accepted a single contribution, but the code has been entirely refactored. You say you want to sell the codebase, not least because it might give a chance to desired features to be developed. The good news is that anyone who wants to develop your code already has just about ...


4

Won't work, because you can't legally call it the GPL; see eg the GPL FAQ: You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name The practical upshot is that only the FSF can issue versions of the GPL. The resulting configure would be a derivative work of a GPLv2+ licensed file, ...


3

The CLA says it applies only to capital-C "Contributions" which is a term that would be defined elsewhere in the document. As an example (not necessarily correspondent to your specific CLA), the Apache 2.0 License includes the definition "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship... that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the ...


3

I know that some of those pictures have a copyright. All those pictures are protected by copyrights. Some of them may have an explicitly stated copyright license. Am I allowed to use those pictures for my (non commercial) Thesis? Do I have to filter them by the license and look on every site the picture appears? When you are not the copyright holder and ...


2

If you do not attach a specific license to your public GitHub project, then the project is publicly viewable and people are allowed to make forks of it based on the GitHub ToS. But that is where the permissions end. Your code is most definitely not open-source, as that term includes giving additional freedoms to users of your code. All licenses I am aware ...


1

I know it's not much of an answer, but yes: it seems to me you have done your research carefully and understood the process well. The only change I would make is that the file LICENCE (or License, or similar) should contain the full text of GPLv3, rather than information about it. But other than that, I think you've got it.


1

In my modified version of the vendorized code, do I retain copyright to my modifications? Can I put a notice such as "Modifications Copyright (c) 2019 ipetrik" after the required "brief summary of changes"? You always own the copyrights on code you write, even if it is a modification of code owned by others, except if you have signed a contract to ...


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