New answers tagged

0

If you use the program to create something you want to sell (and do so by using said program in the way it is supposed to be used, not e.g. just to show it's colorful splash screen on some computer in the background)), I'd say that is clearly commercial use. No, "the image created is a tiny part/will be licensed separatately for free" probably won'...


1

That is something to take up with the data's owners (github folks, in this case). You also have to consider third party rights, and privacy concerns (as noted by @planetmaker's comment). In any case, the ramblings of random dudes on the 'net should never be taken as authoritative answers until checked carefully.


1

IMO (and admittedly IANAL/IANYL) it's all a mess. The podspec file, hosted on github, says that "license": { "text": "Copyright 2019 Google", "type": "Copyright" }, which is remarkably unhelpful, and gives you no rights at all. It also points me to the source tarball; when I download and unpack that, I ...


3

Licencing a piece of code is as simple as that: just state that the code is under the license, and you're done. Usually it's a good idea to add author information, too. The whole point of the exercise is that any other person can unambiguously know the origin of the code and the license (thus permissions granted) for its usage. There is no formal requirement....


2

It's as simple as that. All you need to do is declare the license you are using and add a copy of that license to the source repository. Note that for most licenses, you'll also need to specify the copyright holder and the year the copyright took effect in the licsece's body.


1

I presume you want to sell (licenses to) software that uses the icons, not the icons themselves. As long as you don't modify them, and tell your users where to get them (and possibly change them for others) and state clearly under what conditions they are being used I believe you are in the clear.


2

Material that is published under any license at all is copyrighted, and that copyright ought to be formally registered with the government. Whether or not it has been registered, however, it is "owned." And, "ownership has its privileges." One of those privileges is that the owner can choose to license it any way he likes, and he can ...


4

A had “no apparent license”. Without a license, you can do what copyright law allows you to do, which is very little. So It was not legal for B to publish A under the MIT license. Legally, it was never published under that license. Instead, you were duped into thinking it was. Now A is offering a license. B can now be published with a valid license, but not ...


6

Are the old commits in project A with MIT still considered MIT? No, that code was never licensed under the MIT license: the individual(s) that made that offer to you never hard the right to make it in the first place. You may as well ask if the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge that you bought in an alleyway is still valid, even if the state of New York told you ...


3

As HighCharts is not under an open-source license, you have some restrictions on which license you can use for your project. In particular, you cannot use any of the licenses from the GPL suite (GPL, LGPL, AGPL). All of those licenses have the requirement that you have the right to apply the conditions imposed by the license also to your dependencies. The ...


1

I also read somewhere that notices are no longer obligatory under Berne Convention (at least in countries that are signatories to the convention) You are not required to add a copyright notice to your work in order to be able to establish copyright protection. But once a copyright notice exists, most licenses do not allow you to remove it. When you copy (...


-1

Depending on the language your project is developed in it may be the case that the GPL / MIT licensed code can be installed via a package management tool. Composer for PHP, NPM for NodeJS, RubyGems for Ruby, PyPI for Python, etc. In this scenario, attribution wouldn't be needed. Failing that, you could look to other projects for inspiration. Here's what ...


0

If I were using files from project1 with MIT license, and files from project2 with GPL license, I would create two subdirectories: project1: including the files from project1, and a file named LICENSE or COPYING containing the license project2: same as above but for project2 I would try to keep as separate as possible my code from their code, so that I ...


3

This depends a bit on the version of the LGPL. The LGPLv3 is not a standalone license, but an Additional Permission that can be applied to the GPLv3. Thus, your licensing documentation should include both the GPLv3 and the LGPLv3. This can be achieved by putting each into a separate file, or by putting both into the same file. The LGPLv2 is a standalone ...


5

You have taken code licensed under MIT, and with another person (let's call her Charlie) produced a derivative work which you normally distribute under AGPL. You wish to give Charlie the right to use this in a closed-source product. Yes, you can do this. You cannot free Charlie (or yourself) from the obligations of the MIT licence, but that licence is no ...


3

If you're the only developer,you can do. You have a dual license for your work.


2

Short answer Can you do this? Yes Will they abide by it? Quite possibly not Is it still worth doing? Maybe Long answer As someone who cares about a fair and just society, it's important to remember than a license is one of many tools in your tool box, so you need to ask: a) How will this tool serve my goals? b) What other tools would be better used and ...


4

No, you cannot "just" change the license to GPLv3. The MPL2.0 is a per-file strong copyleft license, with an opt-out provision to incorporate MPL-licensed files into a larger project that is under the GPL license. This means that if you only made changes to files containing MPL-licensed code, then you cannot change the license. Also, if the author ...


4

Are there any hidden pitfalls I may have missed here? First, let us be clear that you want a choice of the AGPL or your own, proprietary license, and not the Apache 2.0 license. Saying "Apache 2.0 for non-commercial use only" is a bit like giving someone a bike and saying, "You have free license to take and ride this bike anywhere in the ...


6

No you cannot. Copyright does not regulate use of information Criminals and state actors operate under different rules. There are different kinds of “IP”. Copyright is well-known, but does not cover ideas or methods. Copyright is more about protecting creative expression. Thus, copyright protects your paper as a literary work, but not any methods or ...


0

You could modify any license to add your personal exception; of course in license like GPL or BSD you would not be compatible with the original license but that is not an issue for you. In general i saw license against ALL military use, see https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/199055/open-source-licenses-that-explicitly-prohibit-military-...


Top 50 recent answers are included