12

NPOSL is an Open Source license; you've made a common reading error with the license text. It's the licensor, not the licensee, that needs to be a non-profit. In other words, a non-profit could publish code under the NPOSL, but everyone else can use the code. The NPOSL is a variant of the OSL; the OSL's author explains the license on their website: There is ...


11

I do not think this is a question that has a straightforward yes or no answer. The CC NC clause is really hard to get a grasp on, and Creative Commons do not provide much guidance about it. Their FAQ: Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses is deliberately vague, and can be summed up in this sentence: Whether a use is commercial will ...


9

Disallowing commercial use is a restriction that open-source licenses are not allowed to have. Any license that doesn't allow you to use the software for commercial purposes is not considered to be an open-source license by both the FSF and OSI, which are the two organizations that essentially define what the term "open source" means. The common route in ...


6

If it is Free Software, getting the source and removing the "buy me" nag should trivial to do, quickly followed by a new github with the code posted. To do what you want, you simply have a not too nagging screen asking for donations and offering commercial support or wishlist work (I have $25 and wish there was a keyboard short cut for foo). You'll want ...


6

No, this is not really possible. The next closes thing that you could do is to add an additional term under GPLv3 section 7: 7(b) to require the “preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it” 7(c) to prohibit “misrepresentation of the origin ...


6

I'm in no way a lawyer, and this is something that you should consult a lawyer for, in terms of actual wording in your agreements/contracts... The ability to license a work belongs to whoever owns the copyright of that work. Where the startup is the owner of that work, it has the ability to offer it to other's under a license (in the same way that I can ...


6

The easiest approach is to license the source code under one license and art assets under another license. The code can be under an open source license, and the art under a non-commercial license like Creative Commons BY-NC1. CC BY-NC requires attribution, as will any mainstream open source license you choose for your code (unless you choose a niche ultra-...


6

A license for public distribution should be clear as to what people can do with it. "Non-commercial" isn't clear. There's room for a lot of disagreement about what "commercial" means. Can I redistribute it on an ad-supported website? Can I use it to prototype a commercial activity, if I discard all the software before going commercial? How about if I ...


6

The Open Source Definition and also the Free Software Foundation specifically insist that no restrictions on use are allowed. The FSF even encourages making money off software, as long as the license terms are followed. What you describe is definitely against the definition of open source.


6

It depends. The type of user itself doesn't matter, at least according to Creative Commons. It is how you use it that matters. From their FAQ: Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses? CC's NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation.&...


5

Given the details you give in comments, we can consider that your software would most likely be a derivative of the original research-only / non-commercial data. Then the question is what the license has to say about derivatives? Does it even allow them? If it does not explicitly allow them, you are most likely not authorized from publishing any software ...


5

I think the "How is GeoGebra licensed?" and other sections of their license page clarify this. The Geogebra source code is all that is licensed under GPLv3. Geogebra, as copyright holders of the source code, are free to also offer the source code or some derivative of it under different licensing terms, including as a binary distribution (installer)...


5

As we say in this question, "The copyright holder is never beholden to the rules of the holder's own license grant". The copyright holder is not bound by his/her own licence. Suppose that Alice creates a library, say libalice, which she releases under, say, LGPLv2.1. Although s2c requires that modified versions be released under LGPLv2.1, Alice is not ...


4

The article you reference obviously is lacking proper crediting at the minimum. You should contact them so they can fix this alright. You should aslo alert them that they may need a proper authorization (which they may have already) from xkcd for a commercial usage


4

A commercial use is one primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation. (Source: Creative commons) So if you only have the adverts for financing the page it's ok, but when you are making money out of it it's not ok.   I really don't want to attribute any link on that page that has the logo That isn't possible. But you could ...


4

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed… That particular licensing ...


4

Personality rights differ wildly between jurisdictions, especially between common-law and civil-law jurisdictions. In general, you have no right to use another person's name or likeness. There is no general exception for non-profit usage. You will have to check your applicable laws for details. Personality rights have trademark-like aspects, but for natural ...


4

If your application does not rely on those as an integral part and the sound files are not distributed with your application: no issue. Just offers your user the possibility to use whatever sound source they personally are comfortable with, and you're fine; it is also permissible to provide some default sources. The sound files are only data the users work ...


3

There are a few solutions: Qt is released under both a commercial license and the LGPL. Many companies find the LGPL license too contaminating (must release derivative works, no static-linking, must provide sources if distributing binaries, yada, yada, yada) so they pay significant amounts to Qt to have a commercial license instead. Another option is to ...


3

You can absolutely have multiple names in a copyright notice, if the licensed work has multiple authors. In some jurisdictions there's also the concept of “joint authorship” that might apply here. You hold copyright automatically by authoring something. It is unnecessary (and quite unusual) to create a legal entity to hold the copyright. Some projects with ...


3

If someone sued Red Hat, for example, if Red Hat (or the computer) crashed and the person lost all of their stuff, that the ruling would likely absolve Red Hat of responsibility IANAL/IANYL. Nonetheless, I think that's likely, and it is because almost all free software licences include a clear and unambiguous liability disclaimer. Here's the one from the ...


3

You are correct that the license appears to be a modified BSD 2-clause license, with non-commercial language added, and that the license is not Open Source. This is similar to the "Academic Public License" created (and, as far as I know, exclusively used) by Omnet. Since this license has never been submitted to an approving body (since it would not be ...


3

Copyright is automatic when you write the work - see copyright.gov for the US. Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. You can license that work to others or not as you wish. The Apache license doesn't give you copyright ...


3

See my answer to this closely related question. The gist is: You cannot use the BCL-licensed JavaFX as provided by Oracle as pre-built for much anything beyond some evaluation and development You can use the GPL+Classpath exception-licensed JavaFX runtime and open source libraries with an OpenJDK runtime for pretty much anything including commercial ...


3

The CC-BY-NC-4.0 license contains a definition of noncommercial in Section 1.i: NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-...


3

I know that some of those pictures have a copyright. All those pictures are protected by copyrights. Some of them may have an explicitly stated copyright license. Am I allowed to use those pictures for my (non commercial) Thesis? Do I have to filter them by the license and look on every site the picture appears? When you are not the copyright holder and ...


2

You can try SNCL. CAN: Distribute, modify CANNOT: Commercial use, hold liable, use trademark MUST: Include copyright, include notice, include license and give credit. Source: Simple non code license (SNCL)


2

The usual approach would be to separately license the code and the assets. Beware that a non-commercial use license will disallow the inclusion on e.g. DVD of free software e.g. with a magazine or probably even the download from Ubuntu. So most likely, Linux distributions will not include such assets. The problem is that "commercial" use is a very broad ...


2

Almost all text editors have that look and feel. If your application were to violate MS copyrights, Microsoft would have already had many other text editors pulled from the market already.


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