People who code: we want your input. Take the Survey
114

Your question concerns a case where Author A publishes original work under the GNU GPL, and then Person B uploads it to GitHub. You ask whether it would be possible for the transaction between Person B and GitHub to affect the ownership of copyright title to the work by Author A. Simply put: no. Person B does not have standing to perform a transfer of title ...


59

APSillers' answer is excellent, but I'd add one thing: although by licensing under the GPL you gave permission to anyone to redistribute your code, you by the same mechanism required that such redistribution be under the relevant version of the GPL. If this github repository isn't clearly GPL'ed, then a copyright violation is occurring, and you as the ...


18

Short answer: Probably not a violation. Long answer (using the relevant part from GPL - since you did not specify the version): You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and ...


18

The C# language specification is publicly available, but Copyright of Microsoft. The Roslyn compiler is licensed under Apache 2.0, so that's open source. Could I bootstrap it given all the code that Microsoft has released? Yes. The Roslyn compiler has been written in C# and is able to compile itself. So, that pretty much covers the language itself. ...


10

(disclosure: I am a supporter and my company is a silver member of the Linux Foundation). TL;DR: Higher levels of membership pay bigger fees and have more say in the running of the Foundation with Board of Directors seats. Yearly fee for Platinum is $500K+, Gold is $100K, Silver is $5K to $20K. Individual supporters pay $99 and Student get in for free. ...


9

Let me take a practical example with this article on How to recursively search directories by using Visual C# that contains some sizeable code snippets. Is there any indication of what I can do with its code snippets? At the bottom of the article there is an explicit copyright notice © 2016 Microsoft and a link to Terms of Use (TOU). In particular the ...


6

This is explained in issue #60 in the vscode github repository. In short, the vscode sources are available under the MIT license, but the Microsoft-branded binaries are distributed under the more restrictive Microsoft license.


6

Under current legal precedent in the United States, LibreOffice et al. did not commit copyright infringement. Look to Lotus v. Borland for the U.S. precedent allowing duplication of interfaces. The code used to create each computer program is copyrightable and may not be duplicated without permission, but the functional components of the rendered interface ...


6

Yes, they can. Firstly, the kernel is licensed under GPLv2 with a syscall exception, which says that the kernel's "copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work"". So Microsoft could ...


6

The ability to redistribute the source code code (to a site like GitHub) is a fundamental aspect of the GNU/GPL licence. If you wish to prevent someone from doing this, then perhaps releasing the project / code under a different licence would be worth while.


5

The question title now reads, "do they not put [my code] at risk of being stolen by Microsoft?", and nobody has yet addressed that part of the question since all the previous answers were written when the question title was, "is that a copyright violation?" So I'll try to address the new part of the question. No, Microsoft won't steal your code, because ...


5

There are several reasons why releasing the source code for Edge under a FLOSS license may not be a worthwhile investment for Microsoft: The code may be tightly coupled with other Microsoft components (e.g., undocumented Windows APIs) that aren't intended for third-party use, so Microsoft is reluctant to disclose code that makes use of them. The code and ...


4

Very short snippet (especially if you modify it, to prove that you copied the idea not a code that you don't understand) and idea are not copyright-able, so you can reuse it. But for larger code, you cannot use the code (see the other answer). Note: once you find the solution, you can look for other sites which use similar code (on non Microsoft sites, ...


4

Something I want to note is the GPL aspect of this question: If someone uploads your code to GitHub, and GitHub does not have terms of use that contradict the GPL, that someone is perfectly entitled - and indeed, licensed by you, to do so. GitHub are also licensed to further redistribute the code, as long as they are not in violation of the license. That is,...


3

No, they can copy or fork your whole code into a new GPLed project, or copy or any parts of your code into other GPLed projects, and distribute it however they like. I'm assuming that copyright notices remain intact on this copy of your project. Other answers cover the possible copyright violations if that wasn't the case. I think the only possible ...


2

One can hardly copyright the idea of an application which allows to write documents or which allows to do calculations on and in a table or to create and display presentations. Other than that, Microsoft's products have nothing in common, least of all any code which a copyright claim would have to be based on, with the competing products which are not ...


2

If you are referring to this project https://github.com/powershell/powershell, then the answers to your two questions are: Licensing: That project is MIT licensed: https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE.txt. So far, there has never been any licensing issue with running MIT licensed software on any Linux to my knowledge. Embrace... : ...


2

Possibly. The GPL requires distribution of build scripts and so forth. If source code only was uploaded and this was not sufficient to build the system then the licence conditions have not been met, so there would be no permission to distribute the source code.


2

LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, which itself was based on StarOffice. StarOffice corp, before being acquired by Sun Microsystems, had reverse-engineered rough compatibility with MS Office 97 formats, something that several other companies (e.g. Corel) had done as well. When MS released OfficeXP, they published the full spec to their quasi-XML format ...


2

The link you gives allows access to the Visual Studio 2017 Image Library EULA. It's a bit of a mess, referring to images as Distributable Code and making references to the software throughout. Still, as I read it (and note that IANAL/IANYL) you may distribute the images alongside MIT-licensed code, but you may not distribute the images themselves under the ...


2

The code appears to be legal to use as it's under some sort of permissive license. I read this disclaimer as a hint that Google Maps licensing is separate. For Google Maps you need to comply with ToS and may be required to pay: https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/pricing/.


2

This means that if you don't consider your (unemployed) self to be a company, or you don't consider your use of the software to be for reference use as per their definition, then you don't have a licence to copy and use it in that way. All licences are grants of rights over and above the default copyright position, which is essentially that you have none. ...


2

This answer was motivated by @apsillers 's hint about the GNU's ethical repository criteria. They have also a list of criteria what seem not important for a simply cloud user (for example, the freedom of their javascript sources), but they are important for the second spot. The criteria has a little bit of obvious influence from the side of the GNU (for ...


2

There are a few potential options here: Only build with MinGW, which links against the unversioned DLL, which comes with Windows. (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11964589) Find a way to force VS to link against the unversioned DLL. This may be hard because it is officially frowned upon. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10166412/how-to-link-...


1

Assuming that you mean the MS Visual C++ runtime libraries, MS has this to say: To deploy redistributable Visual C++ files, you can use the Visual C++ Redistributable Packages (VCRedist_x86.exe, VCRedist_x64.exe, or VCRedist_arm.exe) that are included in Visual Studio. ... The Visual C++ Redistributable Packages install and register all Visual C++ ...


1

This is actually simpler than it sounds. If we simplify a couple of statements found in this post to their core meanings (as relating to the term 'cloud') we see that the second paragraph states "When GitHub first launched … clouds were just things in the sky …", then the fourth paragraph compares that past to today with "Now … clouds ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible