Hot answers tagged

36

Software is free (as defined by the FSF) if it gives you the four freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so ...


22

Most version control systems (like git) don't allow to split the repository into "visible" and "invisible" parts. What you can do with git is to have the public part in one repository, publicly accessible, and the private part in another one. The second, closed, one can then include the first, public, one as a submodule (see git-submodule(...


20

GPLv3 directly addresses your question, so no speculation is required. Conveying unmodified code is covered in s4, and conveying other forms than source code in s6. s6 says that You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of ...


18

TL;DR: The legal incompatibilities between the GPL and the App store TOS don't apply to the MPL, but there is no saying whether Apple will allow your MPL licensed app. First off, what Apple allows and doesn't allow in their app store is entirely up to Apple. As far as I know, they reserve the right to refuse any app for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it ...


12

It certainly sucks when people take your work and use it in ways against your permission, like copying your copyleft work without also sharing their changes. Fortunately you don't have to go straight to the lawyers, as there are a number of things you can do, and also some things to check, to be safe. Is it worth it? Copyright infringement for software is ...


11

Am I allowed to distribute the project for money under this license? Yes. However, if you distribute/sell binaries, then you may not charge extra for the source code. And, as the MPL license is a weak copyleft license, you are giving the users of your library also the right to distribute it further, which means that selling copies of the software is not ...


8

According to the GPL FAQ the output of a GPL program is not licensed under the GNU GPL, unless it copies substantial parts of sourcecode into the output which are complex enough to fall under copyright: Q:In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? A: Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.


7

I agree with the conclusion in your linked SO answer: the GPLv2-licensed wsdl2h generates code that is licensed under GPLv2 also. Therefore you cannot use unlicense on the output. If you link said code with any other code, the whole program must also be GPLv2. Don't just take my, or the linked answer's, words for it. The gSOAP site says so itself (emphasis ...


7

If the copyright of the application is entirely yours, then you do have the option to use the GPL, somewhat contrary to the answer by Martijn. This is more intended as a substitute solution, but Martijn's answer clearly explains why the software may be rejected between the licenses. As you release something, you still maintain complete ownership of the ...


7

The MPL-2.0 license does not require that Contributors add a copyright notice or in another way mark files as changed and it also doesn't contain any explicit clauses about mis-representation. Based on that, there seems to be no violation of the license, although you might look deeper in the copyright law of your country if it states anything about mis-...


7

A common solution I've seen is to design the core for extensibility and put the closed-source elements into extensions. Since the closed-source portions of the product interact only through the extension interface, the source code for them doesn't need to be stored anywhere near the core's source code. For example, an open-core web application might come ...


6

When you use a 3rd party library even though the standard library provides the same functionality, you are adding an unnecessary dependency to your package. Any additional dependencies are problematic because they create maintenance overhead. You will either need to include the library as static files in your package, which means that future updates to the ...


6

I have no idea, but I found this post about MPL-2.0 revision: Internationalization Mozilla has always tried to be a global project, but we were aware that the MPL had some clauses that made non-American users less comfortable with the license. One of these was the section on U.S. Government End Users. This was intended to protect the interests of all ...


6

Can anyone see an advantage to dual licensing MPL/Apache vs simply relicensing? If anything, some actual users may feel strongly about the MPL. Also the MPL 2.0 offers compatibility with v2 of the L/GPL family (thanks to the secondary licenses terms) ... while the FSF considers the Apache 2.0 not compatible with these v2 licenses (but compatible with the ...


5

The Free Software Definition (from the FSF) is: A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition ...


5

Apache 2.0 and all the BSD flavors have no copyleft clause. They allow distribution without sourcecode, so it doesn't matter for them. The MPL Version 1.1 only requires that you make the sourcecode for those parts available which you modified. When there are no modifications you have no obligations to convey any sourcecode. Just make sure that your end-...


5

Having skimmed the apple store TOS I found an interesting passage (emph mine): a. Scope of License: This license granted to you for the Licensed Application by Licensor is limited to a nontransferable license to use the Licensed Application on any Apple-branded products running iOS (including but not limited to iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch) (“iOS ...


5

Yes, your understanding is correct. You may find it prohibitive, but it is actually a requirement of many open source licenses such as MIT, BSD, or Apache-2 that at least the license text is made available to users of a product that contains (indirect) dependencies under that license. The only thing that the MPL 2.0 adds on top of that is that those users ...


5

Rebranding a software suite is a modification that is allowed by all open-source licenses. If you can effectively use the rebranded software in your commercial product depends on the license terms and if they would conflict with the way you want to exploit the commercial product. The MPL license has 3 main requirements that are relevant here The source code ...


4

Licenses don't apply to individual instances of a product, but to the distribution of a product. If you don't in any way distribute or publish any GPL licensed code, then that license does not apply to you. You can design your library to work with a GPL library if the end user happens to have it, but you don't have to license yours under the GPL to do so. So ...


4

I doubt the reviewers are at all concerned about the (eventual, if it ever gets shared) license of your code. They might be asking (as you somehow answer) why you use a C++ matrix library as part of an R package, given that R has matrix manipulation built-in. Answer that question, which I understand is what they are asking. Don't try to second-guess them. If ...


4

The fundamental question to ask is whether you have modified MPL-licensed source code. It can be generally checked easily because files under the MPL license are signaled with the typical header: /* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this * file, You can ...


4

(mandatory disclaimer - I am no a lawyer) As far as I understand the license, the fact that you're using monkey patching is inconsequential. The core issue here is that you're using an LGPLed library, modifying its behavior in some way, and then using it. Whether you're monkey patching it, wrapping it, inheriting from it or whatever probably isn't the point ...


4

This question seems to me to sit at the intersection of two sets of community norms: the scientific community's reproducibility and openness requirements, and the free software community's licensing requirements (the four freedoms). I'm familiar with the scientific community's desire for reproducibility, and note with happiness your footnote that suggests ...


4

The EPL is not compatible with the GPL. The MPL is compatible with the GPL. For that reason I would recommend the MPL if you could choose between the EPL or MPL.


4

No, you cannot "just" change the license to GPLv3. The MPL2.0 is a per-file strong copyleft license, with an opt-out provision to incorporate MPL-licensed files into a larger project that is under the GPL license. This means that if you only made changes to files containing MPL-licensed code, then you cannot change the license. Also, if the author ...


4

The fundamental problem with all copyleft licences is that they have to have a fair amount of legal boilerplate in them. GPLv2 puts it rather well, to my mind, when it says in the preamble To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to ...


3

It's easy to misunderstand the intent of Section 3.3. I did, too. The answer is not exactly. The work as a whole, and its executables, may be under the terms of your choice. The MPL-covered source files whose object code is being distributed must always remain freely available under the MPL, meaning their recipients would be free to fork the project back ...


3

Given that you are the sole owner of your LLC, and depending on how liberal the open source license is, the difference isn't meaningful. Tax If the code is developed for the LLC as a work-for-hire, that is your LLC pays yourself, it may be classed as an R&D expense, which may be advantageous to do. Consult your local tax laws or your accountant. If you ...


3

MPL license The recommended way of applying the MPL license to your source code is to include Exhibit A in the headers of your source files. However, because it is not always a good solution (some languages do not allow comments for instance), the MPL license contains the following advice: If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular ...


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