New answers tagged

0

Placing a note in README or such that "directory xyz is under licence BLA-4.1.2, see xyz/BLA.txt for details" should be plenty (and copyright notes in the different files, as appropiate). What exactly is the translation? Add translations for messages and documentation? Rework so that messages are in English? Work to use something like GNU's gettext(...


1

In addition to entirely avoiding AGPL and similarly-licensed software, you need to carefully consider how your choice of which licenses to accept and which to reject will affect your ability to evolve your business model in the future. For example, if you ever distribute your software to a customer (ie, an on-premises business model) then all of the ...


4

Yes, the MIT and Apache licenses are compatible with each other and you can use dependencies under one of them in a project under the other. The MIT and Apache license are both permissive licenses and the requirements each imposes upon you are not forbidden by the other license.


2

MongoDB's SSPL license is not an open source license and is incompatible with the GPL, so it's good that you ask. But most likely, this license has no consequences in your scenario. The SSPL triggers license conditions when you do one of the following: you give someone else a copy of the SSPL-covered software you create a derived work of the SSPL-covered ...


1

I also read somewhere that notices are no longer obligatory under Berne Convention (at least in countries that are signatories to the convention) You are not required to add a copyright notice to your work in order to be able to establish copyright protection. But once a copyright notice exists, most licenses do not allow you to remove it. When you copy (...


-1

Depending on the language your project is developed in it may be the case that the GPL / MIT licensed code can be installed via a package management tool. Composer for PHP, NPM for NodeJS, RubyGems for Ruby, PyPI for Python, etc. In this scenario, attribution wouldn't be needed. Failing that, you could look to other projects for inspiration. Here's what ...


0

If I were using files from project1 with MIT license, and files from project2 with GPL license, I would create two subdirectories: project1: including the files from project1, and a file named LICENSE or COPYING containing the license project2: same as above but for project2 I would try to keep as separate as possible my code from their code, so that I ...


3

You propose to write software to be offered to others as SaaS on a commercial (and, presumably, proprietary) basis. This software will not be entirely created de novo; you wish to use pre-existing freely-licensed software in the creation of your offering, and you have some questions. What other types of licenses can I use in addition? All free software ...


3

We have to separate the license terms from the license itself, and from other notice requirements. The license terms are about what the recipient is allowed to do with the covered work. The license says “this work is covered by those license terms”. There might be other notices. Copyright notices are usually not legally necessary, but provide nice ...


2

For the copyright lines, it doesn't matter what project the relevant code was originally added to. There is also no legal requirement to mention or reference to the original project name. As a matter of goodwill, it is common to mention what project you forked from. This could be done in a README file for example. If you consider it relevant, you could also ...


2

As we discuss in this question, the output of a piece of free software is not generally governed by the licence on the piece of software. So if someone is taking your tool and using it to generate HTML from their own markdown, then publishing that HTML, the MIT licence doesn't govern those HTML pages, and they are not required to attribute you on them. If ...


0

If you have the chance to look to a Divi Theme - you will notice a CREDITS.md file which lists all those people who contributed and the licenses of their code. In the code itself you need to list the ones who previously contributed to the code as a copyright (xx.xx.xx) Name of Developer / Company Keep I mind that it can be very important to know all people ...


1

@NordineLotfi You can use either of those ways but the easiest way is by just replacing the Project Name - Don't use the same name for your own project! - # Project Name (the name you give to the project) # Copyright 2021 by (here your name) # Copyright 2015-2021 by list the previous copyright owners, if there are more than one you might have ...


25

I think this may be one of those cases where people get confused about copyright because they're caught up in the mechanics of github. You have downloaded a copy of a piece of code licensed under MIT, modified it, and uploaded the resulting code to your github account. You are now maintaining a separate copy of a piece of someone else's code, which may ...


3

First, verify that the image is indeed MIT-licensed. The project's README (or other documentation) may specify different licenses for code versus other media assets. If the image is indeed MIT-licensed, then there is no copyright restriction against using the image, as long as you abide by the license's terms. Namely, you must preserve the license text and ...


2

As I read it, you are right, your library must be released under LGPLv2.1(+). You've based it squarely on the libmodbus code, which is indeed LGPLv2.1+, and by s2c you must release your modified version of the library under the same license. I'm sorry you'd prefer to write an MIT-licensed library, but you chose to modify LGPL code, and so the old adage ...


Top 50 recent answers are included