New answers tagged mit
1
It is very rare that a computer program copies portions of itself into the output it generates and the ones that do are almost invariably used to generate code for another computer program.
As the output of your GAN does not contain code from the GAN itself, let alone a full copy, the condition you quoted for reproducing the MIT license doesn't trigger and ...
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 ...
7
Wouldn't this change violate the terms of the previous copy-left license?
It is indeed true that the GPL itself does not give permission to offer another's work under more permissive terms like the MIT/X11 license.
Of course, nothing precludes a copyright holder from allowing their work to be made available under other terms besides the GPL. The relevant ...
2
A couple of things were not mentioned in the accepted answer:
documentation associated with the software
community adoption
BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent aka "BSD+Patent"
Documentation
Another difference between the BSD licenses and the MIT license is how they deal with the meaning of "software".
MIT applies to the documentation associated with the software, ...
6
No. If Bootstrap were conveyed under GPL, or another copyleft free licence, and if templates were (in copyright terms) derivative works of Bootstrap, then the templates would be required to be conveyed under GPL also, and could be distributed as you have described (though the buyers in your example would have to resell them with GPL rights attached, which ...
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 ...
1
The Free Software Foundation lists both Apache2 and the X11 (often called MIT) licences as being both free and GPL-compatible. The OSI lists both licences as meeting their definition of Open Source. So by the usual standards, content offered under either of those licences is both free and open-source.
are they redistributable
The FSF's four freedoms ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
