New answers tagged

5

That's not really how copyright works. What you have now is an image with several rightsholders, each of whom has a copyright interest in the work. The rightsholder(s) in the Apache2-licensed image still have an interest in the work you've made, as do you. You don't, and can't, own the image. Anything you do with the image, you will need to do in ...


5

I strongly recommend reading Why is CC BY-SA discouraged for code? to understand why Creative Commons does not recommend their licenses for software. In short, the main points are: The GPL is a copyleft license: it requires downstream redistributors to make available the work's source code ("the preferred form for making modifications," whatever ...


2

In the four years since this question was asked, the Commons Clause has appeared. While it's not free of controversy (e.g. is it open source? Is it enforceable?), I think this is exactly what the asker was looking for. In short, you can append this to your favorite open source license and it will, in theory, prevent the resale of your software without "...


1

If I use the server component, I can still charge money for access to my service without disclosing my other server-side code because I am not distributing the GPLed server as a binary. I agree. The client app is a bit more complex. It is true that no shared code is a necessary condition for your code not being a derived work of the GPL client code (and ...


1

Basically in the open source world what is considered software and non software? I don't know about all of the open source community, but I can give you my stance on it. In my view, something is software if it contains instructions to let a computer perform certain actions, where those actions are not just "show this content with this formatting". ...


1

Basically in the open source world what is considered software and non software? There is no fundamental difference: the primary form of protection for both software and "data" is copyright. However, some licenses (e.g. the GNU GPL family) are specifically deal with issues that are specific to software (e.g. linking) so are better suited as a ...


0

It looks like with the post provided by @Nikos C., LGPL 2.1 requires the object code to be published. I just decided to get rid of this hassle and use a different library.


2

We have a question here called So the GPL doesn't restrict the creator of the software in any way? which addresses the first part of this issue. Essentially, as long as you are the sole rightsholder in this library (ie, it's not GPL because it's based on somebody else's GPL code) then it is fine for you to convey the library to the client on terms other ...


3

Hope you have read the license included in the repository . I want to know that do I have to apply for a license to use this code or can I use it without acquiring the license as I'm planning to use/sell it. Yes , You are permitted to use it without acquiring any explicit license. But you have to include the copy right notice as they have clearly stated ...


1

How can I technically change the MPL-v2.0 license to exclude automatic version upgrades? You cannot change the MPL-v2.0 license to exclude the automatic upgrade clause. If you remove clause 10.2 from the MPL license, then you have created a new license and you must call that new license by a different name. Only Mozilla itself is allowed to create new ...


0

As I understand them, Contributor License Agreements do two things: Allow the curator to make certain decisions about what can be done with the project without needing to seek additional consent from all contributors, Help the curator ensure it has the legal right to distribute the project in the first place. You can think of a project that accepts ...


5

This is legally possible but socially inadvisable. The exact wording of licensing terms is generally copyrightable, insofar as it is possible to state the same terms using different words. (I will not attempt to consider whether the legal language in the GPL or CC licenses passes or fails this standard.) The terms, as abstract permissions and requirements, ...


4

Since it seems worth having an answer that is explicitly multijurisdictional, I refer people to the article I wrote for LWN on a talk at FOSDEM 2018, given by a trio of actual lawyers, that explicitly addressed this question. While the whole talk was excellent, and remains well worth listening to, the answer to the revocability question was: In the US, at ...


8

(a) if I am correct about GPL's original "motivation" No you are not correct about the motivation for creating the GPL. To quote Richard Stallman, the father of the GPL license: My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary ...


2

The basis of copyright protection is that the result of human creativity gets protected from being appropriated by others. This means that if you apply a purely mechanical transformation on some source code, then you are not creating a new work as far as copyrights are concerned and thus you can't claim any rights on the transformation. Any modifications you ...


4

Generally, a template, in the context how you appear to use it, is a bare-bones document that people can copy and flesh out with their own content. The template document gives some indications how the author of the template thinks such a document should be structured. As using such a template always starts with making a copy of it and then making changes to ...


0

The AGPLv3 is the same license as the GPLv3, with an extra section that requires you to provide the source code when you modified the AGPLv3-covered software, and users interact with the software remotely over a network. Since you haven't modified the AGPL-covered software, we can treat it as the GPLv3 for this discussion. So would the use of a GPLv3-...


Top 50 recent answers are included