New answers tagged

0

By not distributing the source code, you're stating that your software isn't open source, and thus you cannot use the Apache License.


1

According to the associated licence summary, when you purchase a regular licence You are licensed to use the Item to create one single End Product for yourself or for one client (a “single application”), and the End Product can be distributed for Free. [...] You can’t re-distribute the Item [...] with source files. So putting it on github strikes me ...


4

No, you do not have to make your own project open source. The only requirement is that you keep the MIT license information of the original project intact and that you send it along with any binary distributions of your project (with the indication that the MIT license applies only to the original project).


1

IANAL, but in my understanding GitHub issues can be considered as documentation associated with source code. The only difference between opening an issue and sending a PR or committing changes directly is purely technical. The effect is the same: you add content to the repository. If you released your repository under, say, the MIT license, then the license ...


5

Files that are read as data by the application (i.e. the files may unlock/trigger behavior, but they don't add new behavior or code) are considered independent works of authorship. This means that those files are not affected by the copyright license of the application. It is not needed that the data files reside in a different directory as the application ...


4

Just keep the licenses of the files as-is. Make a clear statement and indication that separate licenses and attribution apply to the files used for regression tests as indicated in either the files respectively (I'd choose that) or a separate file you maintain where you state license and attribution by file. Of course you may not violate the terms of ...


1

If the requirements of the client application are just that there needs to be an external program that can be invoked with a two numbers as input and that produces a few numbers as output, then those requirements are generic enough that the client application and the PARI/GP script will be considered to be separate works for copyright purposes. This means ...


2

In the meantime, the project has been relicensed under MIT and patent grants were removed. The original PATENTS file is here: https://github.com/facebook/draft-js/commit/585af35c3a8c31fefb64bc884d4001faa96544d3#diff-7373d27f0ea94a5b649f893e20fffeda Curiously, the MIT licence does not provide patent protection for contributors. So this seems to be a step ...


4

Let's look at this in more detail. We have a platform vendor PV which will only allow signed software to run on the platform. The platform is a User Product in the sense of the GPLv3. And we have a software vendor SV which wants to supply software that runs on the platform. However, SV's software is subject to GPLv3. If SV gives the software to PV which ...


15

You've already got the answer that LGPL libraries can be used in commercial software. So far, so good. There's more to this than meets the eye, though. The thing is, PySide2 is for using the Qt framework with Python programs. Besides the LGPL license for PySide2, you'll have to make sure that you comply with the Qt licensing terms. The Qt licensing ...


2

Yes, you may do this. I would summarize your obligations as Ensure recipients of your software are given or offered the modified library code Ensure that recipients can rebuild your software using a further modified version of the library. This generally means offering the at least the compiled, linkable object code of your own application code alongside ...


23

Yes, you can distribute your software without making the source code public and without giving recipients the right to make changes to your software. The LGPL license explicitly allows such usages of libraries/packages released under that license. When using an LGPL library/package like PySide2, your obligations are to allow and make it possible that ...


8

Requiring people to contribute their changes back to the original project is a bit of a problem point for licenses. For open-source license, such a requirement fails the "desert island test" and prevent the license from being an open-source license. The desert island test means that a group of people on a desert island with no way of contacting the outside ...


Top 50 recent answers are included