21

Putting software under the GPL does not mean abandoning ownership? Absolutely not. In nations signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright is the default, which means by default only the author (or current copyright holder, if the original author transfers the copyright) may reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, etc. The author of a work may use ...


20

Does the SSPL have a chance of getting OSI-approved? Yes, of course there's a chance, though currently it looks like a rather slim one. The SSPL is significantly stricter than the AGPL. The SSPL puts additional conditions on […] offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or ...


11

Yes. See the examples from my answer to the question "Is Open Source Software a subset of free software?": Example 1: Free Software, but not Open Source Software Netscape’s early versions of Mozilla were released under the Netscape Public License version 1.0 (see its Wikipedia article). This license is approved by the FSF, but it is not ...


10

No, CC-BY-ND isn't Open Source. It violates rule 3 of the Open Source Definition: Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. It also violates the freedom 3 of the Free Software Definition: The freedom to ...


10

The answer is "no". While the new license you've constructed has at is basis two well-known free licenses, it is still a different license and it obviously fails the the Open Source Definition: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Apart from the definition, something should also be said of the problems this "license" ...


9

Software is considered "open source"1 as long as it satisfies at least one of the widely-accepted definitions, like OSD, FSD, DFSG etc. It's possible for a piece of software to both spy on its users / violate their privacy and still be open source; the two properties are orthogonal. However, you may find that among the open source communities, a ...


9

It means that to be considered open, a license is allowed to enforce that the original source must be transmitted unmodified (with the patch file proviso). This is for example useful for a security application where the original version has been vetted by experts in the field but random changes may open up vulnerabilities. Grouping the diffs into patch ...


9

As I've said before, software doesn't possess any licence inherently - it is distributed (or, as the GPLv3 would have it, conveyed) under a licence. You, as the copyright holder, may distribute your software under any kind of licence you want, to anyone you choose. You may choose to distribute it only to 501(c) organisations, and only under GPLv3, if you ...


8

1.It's open-source, so I can host my own builds of software that I compiled myself. Yes. You can. 2.The names of the projects are not registered, so I can use them at my own will and it's not illegal. Also, if the name is ambigious or vague, this just lends me even more leverage. Are you sure about this? Just because the names aren't registered doesn't ...


8

Is what they are doing legal? It certainly seems that way. The phrase "open source" is just a pair of words. Anyone can use the phrase to refer to some kind of "source" that is "open" in some respect. The Open Source Initiative wrote the Open Source Definition (OSD), which is what most people mean when they say "open source". However, "open source" is not ...


7

Open source licenses operate by licensing the rights that exist under copyright. If those rights did not exist (just as they cease to do when a copyright expires), then any terms imposed by the license are moot: recipients of the work can do largely whatever they please with it, because there are no copyright rules telling them they can't. This is mildly ...


7

"Open Source" is not a formally defined term, so there are various definitions. Some might interpret it literally and apply it to any software whose source code is published (without necessarily any granted rights, e.g., to distribute it), some might apply it to any software that comes with certain not necessarily well-defined freedoms, some might apply it ...


7

There is nothing wrong ethically or legally with hosting a site that has discussion space for a particular (open source or not) software product. Nor is there anything wrong with hosting builds and and source of an open source project. There is something wrong though with giving the impression that you are affiliated with some project when in fact you are ...


7

You have stumbled, like many others, across a basic ambiguity in English which does not exist in many other languages; the word free has more than one meaning. The important thing about free software is that it is free as in speech, not as in beer. That is, it is about freedom, not about zero-cost. Often it is zero-cost as well, but that is a side-effect, ...


7

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 ...


5

The clause is actually a historical compromise copied from the Debian Free Software Guidelines; the latter states Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program ...


5

Comparison of free and open-source software licenses > Approvals Example:- NASA Open Source Agreement is open source but not free software. Quoted from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA:- The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original ...


5

The FSF says: Reciprocal Public License (#RPL) The Reciprocal Public License is a nonfree license because of three problems. 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. 2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, ...


5

If you are the sole copyright holder you can do with it as you wish, and issue multiple non-exclusive licenses at the same time. For example, you can license it to the public under the AGPL and license it to some client under a commercial license. When issuing a commercial license I would remove all AGPL license headers. There is no need to disclose to the ...


4

Freedom 0 applies to running the software: you can run it for any purpose, in any way you want. The limitations you mention in free software licenses apply when you modify and/or redistribute the software, not when you run it. The GPL makes this even more explicit; in section 9 of version 3: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive ...


4

It depends on how strictly you interpret the term "open source". If you go with the strictest definition, Open Source is a term defined by the OSI so naturally OSI approval is required. However, as you've hinted at, the approval process is somewhat different from the Open Source Definition. Among the differences are: when OSI disapproves of a license ...


4

The CC BY-ND is not compatible with either the OSI's Open Source definition or the FSF's Free Software Definition. That said, the FSF still considers it to have an appropriate use that is compatible with their movement: to licence opinions and testimonies. The licence shouldn't be used for documentation or project assets, but they do consider it to be ...


4

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 ...


4

Most modern hardware designs are a combination of both hardware and software and like anything we create, both the hardware and software components can be covered by copyright. According to wikipedia :- HDL modules, when distributed, are called semiconductor intellectual property cores, also known as IP cores. There have been several licenses designed ...


4

In your source code, you only need to keep the MIT license notices of your dependencies intact – you do not have to add them anywhere. If someone builds upon your software, they have to comply with the licenses of their entire dependency tree, and also look at your dependencies. If you distribute your software in non-source form (e.g. compiled or minified), ...


3

The FSF lists the CC BY-ND license under a different category: Licenses for Works stating a Viewpoint (e.g., Opinion or Testimony) The introduction says (bold emphasis mine): Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions: just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. So it’s not a license that ...


3

Determining the relative popularity of various licenses is actually quite difficult. Below are two graphs. The first is taken from BlackDuck: Top 20 Open Source Licenses: and list the following top 5 (making up 76 % av the total): GPLv2 (24 %) MIT/Expat (20 %) Apache 2.0 (16 %) GPLv3 (10 %) modified BSD (6 %) The second one is taken from presentation at ...


3

The thing here is that restrictions to modifying the source code are only allowed, if the distribution of patch-files with the source are allowed. Patch-files are simple files that save the differences between two versions of files - especially sources for software. A patch-file can be automatically applied by common tools to create another version of a file....


3

Unfortunately for you, the FreeRTOS license is fundamentally broken: Any FreeRTOS source code, whether modified or in it's original release form, or whether in whole or in part, can only be distributed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License plus this exception. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on ...


3

As a generic (late) answer: Google (and lots of companies) expect contracts signed by the person legally authorised to represent the company. If you are the only one then your best title is "owner of the company" or whatever your legal environment provides (here around I am the "CEO" even if it's a one-man show). In Europe at least Google usually asked for ...


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