New answers tagged

3

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 ...


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

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 ...


0

I actually find that the Apache 2 License is pretty easy to read and understand. The clauses are clearly worded. Here is a pretty short summary of your obligations (you better read the original!) You must always give a copy of the Apache License (regardless if you distribute your SW as source or compiled) You must always identify if you have changed any of ...


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.


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 ...


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/...


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 ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


2

Effectively yes, although I suggest you are much more explicit about exactly which material you intend to place under each license than just throwing some license files in some directories. In particular, there is no real concept of an "MPL 2.0 repository" - copyright (and thus open source licensing) exists at a more granular level than that of a ...


5

As long as you don't distribute further, the license (permissions you give third parties) is quite irrelevant. If you want to publish it, then the license becomes relevant. And what license(s) you select depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want it to be shared freely, but not be used for closed developments, use a copyleft license. If you want ...


0

Is there some kind of software license for an open source but copyrighted program? Yes. All open source licenses. If the program weren't copyrighted, there would be no need for a license in the first place. Also, pretty much all programs are copyrighted, unless the author has been dead for more than 70 years. Is there some kind of software license for a ...


1

how do I fulfill the Boost license requirements when using functions contained in the boost header files and compiled libraries This depends on if you copied parts of the Boost libraries into your repository or if your project just assumes they have been downloaded to the build machine beforehand. The Boost license is a very permissive open-source license ...


Top 50 recent answers are included