5
No, the configuration files are not part of the work; reading a text configuration file is in general not "intimate data communication".
Yes, if the injected modules engage in intimate data communication with the covered work.
Yes, ditto; while there is some debate over whether linking creates a derived work in copyright law, the general consensus (...
3
When it comes to copyright, your specification and the code that implements it are two completely unrelated things. This means that whatever copyright license you choose for your specification, it has no effect on the license an implementer can use for their code.
If you want to enforce an open-source implementation of your specification, then you must look ...
3
Suppose if I uploaded to my Github repository a .pdf of a technical book I've written and want to share. According to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, if someone were to fork the repository, they would still be bound by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to not modify (create a derivative) and redistribute that derivative, correct?
Yes, that is correct. Forking a repository does not ...
3
The SLA0044 is a zero-cost licence; it permits redistribution and use without payment, but it doesn't give users most of the freedoms associated with free software. It is also, as you have pointed out, aggressively keen to stay that way.
As I read it, you can't meaningfully release your code under GPL, since your code requires the library to build into a ...
2
My gut feeling is you can't get what you want. Assuming that works created from a template are derivatives of that template, you're saying you'll distribute your template CC BY-NC, but with an exception that derivative works are simply under CC BY.
Alice can then take the template, make a significant addition to it, and release that (it, too, being a ...
2
When you use Dependencies (direct or transitive) and you are not actually including this code of dependencies into your distribution, but you are just referencing it (and the user of the software will have to download and install it), then you can consider the information about the dependencies as metadata related to your code. So in your own license.txt you ...
2
It may be helpful to read the actual license text. The page that you link to says:
This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. Disclaimer.
It appears that the text for "Attribution" is identical on all of the licenses. It's a more human-friendly summary of what is allowed. Continuing to read the human-readable ...
2
No, you don't.
The AGPL Section 13 only requires you to publish the sourcecode of an AGPL-licensed program if you "modify the program". When you host an AGPL-licensed software as-is, then you have no further obligations.
And even if you were modifying min.io, that provision only applies to "users interacting with it remotely through a computer ...
1
If you are releasing the source code of your application you need to include a copy of the apache license in your source code (note if the library itself already has a copy of the license thats enough).
Its also good practice to credit the author yes, include somewhere in your application (perhaps an about page) a list of libraries used and their owners/...
1
This is a bit tricky, I would like to offer a few approaches. I am assuming that you can ship the synthesized code freely, and your question only relates to sharing the source.
a) Whenever you distribute the part of the code which includes this Terasic code, you should always include the permission and disclaimer language. You should keep the Terasic code ...
1
I think the only realistic answer to your question is some combination of:
no-one knows
which jurisdiction(s) do you care about? Trademark law is not nearly as homogeneous globally as copyright law is, so you may get different answers in different places.
talk to your lawyer when you have a specific trademark in mind, with the exact wording of any usage ...
1
I suggest you add the MIT license in that directory and in addition add proper SPDX identifiers in each of the files in order to create an unambiguous situation.
1
I had a short discussion on this with representatives of the Free Software Foundation Europe in 2017 or 2018 where we came to the conclusion that a Creative Commons license could be well suited to publish trained models.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible