New answers tagged

2

I don't really like the UNLICENSE, because I am not 100% convinced that that license does exactly what was intended in jurisdictions that don't allow you to dedicate your work into the public domain1. The MIT license explicitly allow sublicensing of the work, so my recommendation would be to go that route. Then you can, in the file that you borrowed from ...


1

The rules are very simple: If you want to relicense a project, then you need approval from all the copyright holders. It does not matter here that the MIT license is mostly a subset of the Apache license. They are different licenses and if you want to change the license under which the project is offered, you need permission.


3

I made an open-source blog theme(template) based on Hugo's static web page generator. That's pretty much the beginning and the end of the analysis, right there. Your work is a derivative of Hugo's generator, by your own admission. I just removed all the code that I referenced from that person's Hugo theme now. This brings you up against what is known ...


1

You wish to ship your software as a zero-cost binary ("freeware") whilst reserving source code to paying licensees, who will not be permitted to use it to make products for general distribution. You want to know if you can release the binary under an MIT licence without causing yourself problems. Interestingly, this is the second question we've had here ...


1

When you re-license, the GPL would be going on the work as a whole. The Expat parts you added are still licensed under the expat license individually, and under the GPL collectively. (which is why many source files have the license notice at the top in a comment. So people don't have to be concerned about this when developing free software)


1

If there's nothing otherwise prohibiting you, you may publish your app code to a public git repository under any license you choose and even with no accompanying license at all. With regard to copyright it depends on applicable laws. In the United States, for example, copyright is automatic and a transfer of that copyright cannot be executed without a ...


3

With respect to my colleague, I disagree with a lot of his answer. The core analysis I think is correct, not least because it comes straight from the GPL FAQ: if the plugin is tightly coupled to the main body of code, the whole (application and plugin) is a single work, which is a derivative of (amongst other things) the plugin; if not, then not. Note that ...


0

If you do not wish to disclose your sources for the MIT-licensed application, then it would be really helpful to everybody to make that intention clear by changing the license of the application to a closed-source license. The licensing status of your application in combination with a GPL plugin depends very much on how the two interact. If the application ...


Top 50 recent answers are included