30

There is no free software / open source license that will satisfy your requirements. These licenses generally focus on the freedoms of end users, they are not trying to restrict anyone. The freedom to use software for any purpose (including to compete with your offerings) is considered essential. Using a freedom-preserving license with the purpose of ...


16

Mr. Coyote should talk to his lawyers ASAP. While he was unaware that the code he was using was a copyright violation, he could make a reasonable defense against punitive damages. However, now he is aware (or has a strong suspicion) it is a copyright violation and continues to use it, a court will look far less favourably on him. Unrelated to that: Let's ...


12

Your question already contains the relevant analysis, and without knowing details about their protocol there's nothing to add here. So this is a case where the software could be compliant, and is not obviously non-compliant. Ultimately, this is not for the FSF or me but for a court to decide. So we'll never know unless and until a Blender copyright holder ...


5

The GPL only applies to derivative works of the GPL-covered software. In particular: if you modify the covered software, or if you include the covered software (whether in whole or in part) into another software such as by copying code or by linking a library. The GPL does not extend to other programs, even if those other programs communicate with the GPL-...


4

Is my interpretation correct and am I really not allowed to link any closed-source library which does not fulfill the system library exception to a GPL software, if I am conveying a GPL software of someone else, which I only modified? Is that true, even if the closed-source, non-system DLL is zero-cost and either freely downloadable by the user or already ...


4

I agree with JNic above. I note your edit regarding the distribution of binaries linked to System Libraries, but I think you are misunderstanding this exception. The FAQ entry you quote makes it clear that if a library is a System Library, then the mere choice to distribute a copy of said Library along with your work doesn't prevent you from availing ...


4

Nothing in the GPL or LGPL, whether version 2 or 3, requires you to offer object files of any kind whatsoever. Instead, both versions of both licenses impose conditions on distributing object files, under the assumption that you already wanted to distribute object files in the first place. When distributing object files, you are expected to provide the ...


4

The GPL is not specific to any technology like Java vs Lua, Windows vs Linux. To determine the scope of the GPL, we have but one question to consider: does this form a single program? This question is not for the GPL to answer, it is a question for copyright law. However, the GPL authors have opinions on this question, which I regard as sufficiently ...


4

It's risky to use any computer. Zero-day exploits are found all the time, and we're all essentially defenceless against them until they're disclosed and fixed. But it's risky to cross a road, and yet we all do it; the question is always are the benefits worth the risk, and sadly, nobody can answer that for you, because nobody can tell you how much you'll ...


3

As the copyright owner of the source code. You are fully within your rights to license your software as you see fit. Even if this means multi-licensing. When multi-licensing, you offer end users/developers multiple options to license, in which you can either dictate the conditions of which license needs to be used, or simply allow them to choose which ...


3

However, what happens if one wishes to link an LGPL software to a proprietary library? The aim of the GPL (and to a slightly lesser extent the LGPL) is that a recipient of the (L)GPL-licensed code has the right to make changes to any part of the code. For that reason, the GPL stipulates that the entire project must conform to the terms and conditions of the ...


3

The GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately doesn't hit the mark completely. Although it does mandate that users who interact with the licensed material via network are given the right to receive a copy of the source code, it doesn't mandate publishing the data.


3

The developers behind the Timescale database are attempting to do something in this direction with their license, see e.g. the post on their blog. I am unable to judge, whether this has any chance of surviving in a legal court, but I think it is an interesting attempt anyway ...


2

You have to use the GNU GPL version 2 or later. A theme or plugin is a derivative work of WordPress because it uses WordPress functions, hooks, etc. But this doesn't prevent you from selling your plugin! You are free to require a payment to get the plugin, but it has to be under the GNU GPL version 2 or later.


2

The question you have to ask yourself is "what makes the game unique?". Most games are a combination of code (the actual programme) and art assets (graphics, music, sound...). They do not necessarily need to form a single entitiy, but can be licensed differently. Another thing to mind, besides the license, is the name of the game. If you want to be ...


2

Is it GPL compliant to distribute any non-GPL, closed-source linked library, which falls under the system library exception, with GPL code? A library distributed with the program does not fall under the system library exception.


2

No, that is not possible. First, the header file and the corresponding implementation are closely related enough that if one is under the LGPL license, then the LGPL requires that the other is also under the LGPL license. And putting the header file also under a proprietary license is not going to work either if the existing LGPL code needs to be modified to ...


2

Acme Corp. has created an unholy legal mess, both for themselves, Mr. Coyote, and Foobar, Inc. Acme Corp. has committed two acts of copyright infringement: Obviously Foobar's code, which they were not allowed to copy at all. But also all the GPL licensed code: Acme created a derived work of the GPL licensed code. They couldn't distribute it under the GPL ...


2

According to this page [1], these are the most restrictive: European Union Public License 1.1 European Union Public License 1.2 GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 Open Software License 3.0 Personally, I use Open Software License 3.0 with my projects. https://choosealicense.com/appendix


2

If you are the sole copyright holder to "My Software", then any license allows you to do as you propose. What any open-source license also allows is that anyone can take your open-source version, remove the adds and then publish the modified version again. If that is not acceptable, then you should not use an open-source license and the rest of the ...


2

Because we use those LGPLv2.1 libraries and distribute them together with the rest of our application we have too license our work under at least LGPLv2.1 As long as your software has some application component that contains no LGPL-licensed code (but depends on an LGPL library), you may distribute that application component linked to LGPLv2.1-licensed ...


1

This is a bit tricky, I would like to offer a few approaches. I am assuming that you can ship the synthesized code freely, and your question only relates to sharing the source. a) Whenever you distribute the part of the code which includes this Terasic code, you should always include the permission and disclaimer language. You should keep the Terasic code ...


1

First let's establish what is meant when we talk about open source code. Code that is published without any license attached to it, is open but proprietary. The copyright of that code belongs to the developer who wrote it. You need to obtain permission from the author to use it. This author can release that code under a license. If that license is approved ...


1

I would say that interpreter provides an isolation and would just give some examples: If I distribute a program including LuaJ and some lua script, is that one program? I would say so. And if I publish the lua script I wrote for it to be GPL, does it mean that LuaJ is GPL? I hope we see the problem here. That should not change what license LuaJ is. Also, ...


1

I think this depends what you mean by "the library". You can use anything which is in the codebase itself as that is licensed under the GPL. However, all the JavaScript in the sample code (e.g. list.js) is not available for you to use as it is explicitly marked as covered by their commercial license. Similarly, I suspect you'll also find that the ...


1

Dual licensing GPL and a commercial license might make sense. People can use the software in open source projects free of charge, but have to pay for a commercial license to use the software in proprietary projects.


1

Whenever anything shares address space with a GPL'd component, whether it was linked statically or dynamically, the whole binary falls under the GPL unless there's a specific exception for it (such as the system library exception, or the Linux kernel's syscall clarification), and you have to provide GPL'd source for everything whenever you distribute those ...


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