New answers tagged

8

The business of RedHat and other linux companies usually lies in selling service, training and convenience around it. While the software itself is open source (at least most of it), they do sell the service to provide expedite security fixes. In particular they offer you the guarantee that you can run the product for at least a decade on the same software ...


1

It looks like to me as if html2canvas contains code from Microsoft's TypeScript project. I don't know if the inclusion was manual or via an automatic tool, but it makes html2canvas a derivative of TypeScript, in copyright terms. TypeScript is licensed under Apache2. This requires that any derivative work include the Apache licence text (s4a) and the ...


2

MobileFFMpeg is licensed under the LGPLv3 license. When using a library under that license, the requirements you have to fulfill are You must inform users of your software that this library is being used and under what license it is. This would be covered by your attribution, if you also refer to the LGPL license there. You must allow users of your ...


-5

Insert current year this way: <script type="text/javascript">document.write( new Date().getFullYear() );</script>.


1

I agree with Philippe. However you should note, that newer OJDBC drivers (since 19.6) are under FUTC license according to: https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/appdev/jdbc-ucp-19-7-c-downloads.html This is a non-clickthrough license. Therefore the artefacts are also available in public repositories (in contrast to the removed older versions). E.g. ...


1

Judging by your last paragraph, the backend plugins are loaded as libraries into the application that contains your library. The GPL license considers that the application and all involved libraries are a single work and that the GPL terms and conditions must apply to every part of that work. As a consequence, if you distribute your library build with/...


10

The Creative Common licenses and thus especially CC-BY ones were designed as licenses for creative work like texts, like images, models etc. That includes of course work like texts in blog posts - and they are very suited to that, so go for that. I've no statistics, but as popularity of usage goes, wikipedia definitely is a good example, as is this site As ...


0

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see any glaring holes in those additional permissions. The only thing that has me very slightly worried is the sentence about the Corresponding Source at the end of the first permission (Now removed in an update of the question). I had to read the license text very carefully to convince myself that it doesn't contradict the ...


3

Your understanding about distribution being conveying the source or binaries to others is accurate in general. Licenses like the Affero GPL were created to close this "loophole." However, it's considered good etiquette to make an acknowledgement of the software you include, and to upstream or otherwise publish the changes you make to open source ...


2

A section for "how to cite" is legally speaking a nice-to-have part often found in repositories used for academic research. It is not a requirement by the licenses which require that proper attribution is given or retained within the repository as to not mis-represent who contributed and what is the license. The suggestion on how to cite generally ...


1

As long as you just publish your source code that references the MIT-covered libraries, you don't have to do anything: the MIT license only imposes requirements when you copy covered code in whole or in part. However, if you offer binaries of your software they would include the MIT-covered code. Then, including the notice files as you suggested is a very ...


9

This has many philosophical, social, and practical problems: This could not be free or open software according to Debian's Free Software Guidelines since it fails the desert island test, i.e., it is necessary to communicate with some particular third party to use the software. Aside from being annoying for those who are able to comply, it is a huge ...


3

License wise, you can combine code from multiple platforms into one if the licenses are compatible with each other. Two licenses are compatible if Neither license contains a restriction on what license must apply to other code in the project The restrictions/requirements that a license imposes on the rest of the codebase is not forbidden by the license ...


2

While in some sense this is really a question for Law SE, the common-sense version of it is a matter of whether there are original ideas in the deletion and whether the changeset is expressible (not necessarily as a patch, just in some comprehensible form) in a form that's insufficiently original/creative to be subject to copyright. As the extreme cases, ...


2

What this author has signed in not a Contributor License Agreement, giving the project additional (non-exclusive) rights in addition to what they get under the AGPL, but a transfer of copyrights (CTA, Copyright Transfer Agreement). This means that the AGPL project owns the copyrights on the contribution and the author has just as many rights as anyone else ...


5

Rebranding a software suite is a modification that is allowed by all open-source licenses. If you can effectively use the rebranded software in your commercial product depends on the license terms and if they would conflict with the way you want to exploit the commercial product. The MPL license has 3 main requirements that are relevant here The source code ...


12

Not all changes are of sufficient novelty to constitute something copyrightable, whether they are additions or deletions. For a simple example, consider any old out of copyright song or hymn of five verses. I could make an 'arrangement' of only the first, second, and fifth verses, but this should not be considered novel enough to be copyrightable. So in ...


0

I believe the question makes the assumption that there's just a single work and copyright can either apply or not. However, we have two works which are separately copyrightable: The commit history, and the code at a specific version. You get copyright in the history if you have a commit there, since you are one of the many authors of that history. You get ...


0

If you modify a work by removing from it or making rearrangements, the modifications you have made are based on your ideas which manipulate someone else's expression. Copyright is concerned with expression, not ideas. The copyright statutes in the United States do not define what "expression" is. If you wanted to assert copyright over something ...


37

For me, this exposes a weakness in the mental model many coders seem to have about the operation of copyright. Consider a pile of bricks, representing code contributions to a work. In one (surprisingly common) model, each brick is painted in a colour representing its licence status; red for BSD, blue for GPL, green for Apache, and so on. Whoever made and ...


2

The author has the copyright, so he can relicense from the license point of view. But the CLA is not a license, but a contract. And you need to read the contract to know what it allows and what not. One possiblity is, that the contributor signed that he will not license the code other than to the company the CLA is for or AGPL for the general public. Another ...


0

Short answer: Migrate to OpenPdf, it will fix the issues of iText 2.1.7 and it is open source and up to date. https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF You cannot use iText open source 2.1.7 because of IP/license issues of the code fragments in the code.


2

Open source style collaboration within a company or group of companies is called inner source. Within a legal entity, no special licensing is needed. Collaboration can be based on (non-binding) internal policies. But between legal entities (e.g. subsidiaries), custom licenses can be useful to establish boundaries of use and contractual obligations. E.g. DB ...


1

Rolling your own anything-which-requires-skill usually results in a product inferior to what a professional would produce so it's best not to do so unless you have a reason which makes it a better course of action. This isn't to say rolling your own is a bad idea. In fact it benefits the opensource community by introducing new ideas, and showing areas for ...


18

My ideal would be something that requires attribution only in source form, but not in compiled/binary/object form. The Boost Software License has this very feature baked right into it, no modification needed. It is “very similar to the BSD license and the MIT license” (direct quote), but was designed with these very use-cases in mind: Must require that the ...


9

My first thought was that a simple variant of BSD could probably do the job for you, but then I caught myself. It's kind of you, that you don't want to saddle people offering compiled versions of your code with any kind of attribution requirement, but I advise strongly against attempting to embed that in some form of custom licence. In this talk at FOSDEM (...


1

I'd like to require that generated images are attributed to my software, e.g. CC-BY 4.0. Can I do that? It would do no good. Even if you could, nothing would stop me from removing that restriction from your licensing, distribution, installer, or whatever and redistributing it as the AGPLv3 allows. You can't both put something under the AGPLv3 and also ...


12

The way I'd be inclined to handle this is as if it were a program which ships with a corpus of clip-art, then selects and arranges elements of that corpus according to user-provided instructions, expressed via an input string. Firstly, it is well-established here that the licence on a piece of software does not generally affect the licence status of the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included