10
If downstream users of your project distribute it without including attribution for the CC-BY-licensed work, they are in violation of the terms of that CC-BY-licensed work. This is an obligation that copyright holder of the work has asked for as part of allowing redistribution of their copyrighted work. If someone redistributes the work without meeting that ...
5
Yes, you can take the MIT licensed code from Github and use it for a business (or any other purpose for that matter).
You will of course have to pay for hosting, the time to configure it and install it, make sure somebody is monitoring it for security issues, find a way to upgrade it when a new version is released, and a whole load of other tasks. Given all ...
5
"Versions" means a potential GPL v3.1, v4, v5 and so on.
"Revisions" is not used in the text you have quoted.
With regards to the "proxy" paragraph, it is possible for you, the copyright holder to license a program with something like
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of ...
4
If a software is distributed under several different licenses, then you are usually allowed to choose which license offer you take up; you then have to abide by all the terms and conditions of the license - but not necessarily by all of the other license offer you did not take. This is common for dual-licensed software where one form is a copyleft licensed (...
2
This is the old Ship of Theseus dilemma. Ultimately, I think that this question would ultimately be up to the courts. If it was a jury trial what could you convince the jury of?
It's not a modification. Consider SSH. It's an IETF standard, which is for the purposes of this discussion comparable to slides from a presentation. And yet closed source ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
