New answers tagged

0

I have written a program that uses several open source components. First off, it's written in python. Second, I use the modules subprocess, argparse, os and datetime. […] My goal is to disallow any use, modification or distribution of that program that is not explicitly allowed by our company. May I use a simple, standarized EULA for that? Yes, you may do ...


0

I don't quite understand the question, so if I misinterpret something please correct me in reply. If there is libA under BSD license, and libB under BSD license and libA or libB is merged with GCC, you may take all code you want from both libA and libB and use it under BSD license. But if you take GCC code that is merged with e.g. libA, all the work is GPL'...


0

You can use MIT license for your code. So all users using your code must use it under MIT license, but if they touch that library, they can use it under zlib license. Full package will be in mixed-license form (Some code is MIT, some zlib licensed). Executable will be under the zlib license, because zlib is more restrictive. THIS POST IS NOT A LEGAL ADVICE


0

It's trademark, not copyright issue. I recommend you adding "Changelog.txt" file, because you didn't modified file, but it's name. But if you modify class names, you should change that class name in other files. Then add a changelog in that files "Updated classes names". THIS POST IS NOT A LEGAL ADVICE


2

You want to use standard library in closed-source products. It's a normal thing and it's allowed by the PSF. PSFL is free license and non-copyleft. It requires to do some things like give credits or place that license text in your program as a notice (no as license for your software). You can do that making file "THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.TXT". I ...


1

One of the central objectives of FLOSS is to place all recipients on roughly equal footing as the original author, as far as legal rights to modify and sell the software are concerned. As you've identified, most FLOSS business models rely on promises based on your technical or social authority (e.g., you promise to customize the software or fix the software ...


0

Each file contains specific copyright notice. Because there are files, that are licensed under GNU LGPL/GPL, you should learn how does it work. If you use files licensed under GPL, your app must be GPLv3. Because it's library, if you use it, you should include COPYING.Newlib to your executables. Note that AT&T uses term "BSD License", so you ...


1

This is a bit complicated because you want to do something that a lot of people usually work on. Let's define what "distribution" is. A GNU / Linux distribution is a specific set of tools linked by the installer. Remember that this collection of software is AGGREGATION, which means it may (and must) include software under a non-GNU GPL (even ...


3

There isn't a particularly good solution. I would give up on trying to achieve a network copyleft effect in your case. The AGPL-3.0 lets you define additional permissions per section 7. Indeed, the LGPL-3.0 is implemented as a set of additional permissions for the GPL-3.0. In principle, you could take the LGPL-3.0 and rewrite it to extend the AGPL-3.0 ...


0

I found an issue on XZ conda-forge package's repo that corresponds to my question. The person posted determined that xz package does not include the scripts that are licensed under GPL, so there may exist a discrepancy with XZ conda-forge package licensing. At most, the package is licensed under LGPL.


1

As the question is still 'hot', I just wanted to point you to this current case, where a npm library has been made unusable by the official maintainer of the library, and it causes many hiccups (while it does not seem to be actual malware (in the traditional meaning of the word)). https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/issues/18323 It appears to be a protest against ...


3

In the United States, the disclaimer only disclaims warranties which are a specific kind of protection that applies to products sold to consumers. Vendors can offer whatever warranties they like to attract customers, e.g., "if your product breaks in the next three years due to faulty production quality, we will replace it." But U.S. law also ...


5

At least in the UK, a license cannot override the law. If you do something actively malicious, you expose yourself to potential penalties, both civil and criminal. The point of the "no warranty" clauses in open source licenses is to ensure that the bar for (successful) legal action is set much higher - in order to win the case, you would have to ...


12

This depends on exactly what they've said. If it's We'd rather you didn't use non-stable libraries with this product. If you do this, we won't help you. that's absolutely fine, and very similar to the position the Linux kernel community take with non-open source modules in the kernel. Even something like We'd rather you didn't use non-stable libraries ...


2

[...] xz, uses multiple licenses (public domain, LGPLv2.1+, GPLv2+). I wish to avoid using GPLv2+ as it requires disclosure of the entire source code. Is there a way in using the XZ package without the disclosure, or am I missing something? As mentioned in the COPYING file of XZ, different parts of that project are under different licenses. The majority of ...


2

If you have taken the pysqlite3 library and are modifying that to add your encryption feature, then you should keep the original zlib license, because it is just easier if a project is under a single license. And the zlib license is not that different from the MIT license anyway. On the other hand, if you are pulling in pysqlite3 as a dependency into your ...


-1

My question: Before coining free software concept(in 1983), Was the software(before 1970's) released with free source? My father (Dimitri Starynkevitch, died in 1993) developed the PAF compiler on CAB500 in the early 1960s in France. If I recall correctly, the CAB500 computer could be sold (before 1965) with the "source code" of PAF on punched ...


0

I am creating a reimplementation for a different language of a software library that is licensed under the W3C Software Notice and Document License. The original library contains a NOTICE file. As my project is heavily influenced by the original I would assume that it constitutes a derived work (which I want to publish under the MIT license). Legally, I am ...


2

The W3C license you linked to does not mention a NOTICE file, so there is no requirement to have or keep such a file. The best way to attribute the original library is to have the text This software includes material copied from <original library> (<link to repository>). Copyright © [YEAR] W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang). in both your README and ...


2

OSI has a definition of 'permissive' A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open source license — one that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivative works. and a definition of 'copyleft' "Copyleft" refers to licenses that allow derivative works but require them to use the ...


0

As I understand them, the two terms "copyleft license" and "permissive license" are not exclusive. A "permissive license" is any license which permits use without specific individual permission from the user CC-By and CC-0 are permissive licenses, because they permit people to reuse the content without directly askign for ...


Top 50 recent answers are included