New answers tagged

0

The only way to argue that the license doesn't allow you to distribute modified versions is to argue that when the second paragraph says "use", it means "use" in the technical sense, that is, as opposed to distribution. You would also have to argue that the "as-is" in the first paragraph means without modifications rather than without support or warranty. ...


2

I recommend to avoid it. If you download the package manually you can check that no License available in the whole package and no references to it. So for me, this is an Unlicensed case. Also, you can check more information about the maintainer in the Github profile.


-1

First, Git is not being packaged or redistributed here for the terms of GPL conditions to get it enacted.


5

With respect to my colleague Bart, a licence that "encourages" users to contribute back would not fail the desert island test: that is engaged when the licence requires such contribution or communication. The example Debian quote in the linked page refers to an author who says "you must hereby send me your changes"; note "must". A licence that asks the ...


3

If there is such a license, it would not be an open-source license. Such a license would likely fail the Desert Island Test Can a group of people exercise their rights under the license, even if they have no way of communicating with you. Besides that, a copyright license is not the best way to motivate people to contribute bug reports/feature requests/...


3

All free / open source software can be sold. If you're distributing GPL software then you have to make the source code available to those who receive it. If your code is merely running in a VBox instance then you won't be bound by VBox' license, though if you use other free software libraries make sure you follow their licenses too. With VirtualBox the one ...


2

What you describe reads pretty much as a translation to another language with "only" the work necessary to adopt it to that without changing the principle logic or structure of the programme. Generally, that makes your work a derivative work of the original work and you are bound to its license. For a GPL-licensed source that means you will need to comply to ...


0

A GPL-licensed library requires that any programme making use of it is also distributed under the GPL. However a GPL-licensed programme does not require that all libraries (or modules) it uses are also GPL-licensed. The modules can be under GPL or other licenses which are more permissive (like BSD, Apache, LGPL etc).


1

The GPL license on the library does not strictly imply that you must use the GPL license on the program. The GPL license requires that the rights that users get under the GPL license are extended to all code in the application, but that can also be achieved by using a GPL-compatible open-source license. Additionally, the GPL license requires that you ...


1

Using a piece of documentation in order to write your own program does not generally produce a derivative work. A derivative work would mean that you copied or transformed copyrightable portions of the source material in a manner that would require permission. Keep in mind that copyright only protects the particular expression of an idea. The idea itself is ...


3

According to a recent slashdot post Bruce Perens has declared: The "Coherent Open Source" plan asks creators of new work to place it under one of only three licenses: The Affero GPL 3, LGPL3, or Apache 2. These three were chosen because they are all compatible with each other, are all approved of by both OSI and FSF, and they provide a range of ...


2

The MIT license does not require that you in some way reference the original project when you copy some code. The MIT license does require that you copy the copyright and license text along with the code that you copy. Depending on how the copyright statement is formulated, this can become effectively a reference to the original project.


4

We can both write a HelloWorld application in the same language and chances are that both programs will look very similar. This does not mean that, if I were to publish mine first, that your version would be derived from mine. Both are independent works, no matter how similar they look. Copyright law and -judges also recognize the fact that as there become ...


3

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. As far as I understand it, GPL allows your program to depend on non-GPL "system libraries", which are: The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component,...


0

I finally found the "Commons Clause", which should solve my problem. Is it enough to add the following LICENSE.txt file to my project or did I make any mistake or overlook something? <PRODUCT> Licensing Copyright 2019-2020 Daniel Berghold (public@<my domain>.cc) Licensed under the Apache ...


2

As I understand it, noting that IANAL/IANYL, and assuming that Peter is an employee of his company rather than a contracted resource: 1a. Mostly correct. You also have certain labelling and license-distribution obligations (see eg LGPLv3 s3); but as regards the provision of actual code, I think you're right. 1b. Correct. 1c. Correct; Peter must either ...


Top 50 recent answers are included