61

This is a tricky question. Open source licenses are generally irrevocable. Once you publish something under a license, you can relicense future versions but cannot retroactively change the license. Yet here, you have never directly published the project under the old license. My take on this is that the MIT license on the old commits is in effect for those ...


22

No, GitHub allows releases with different licenses. If you do not choose one, it is the usual basic assumption: all rights reserved. This is however overlayed by the terms of service you (implicitly or explicitly) accepted by using the site and creating an account. In the case of Github it allows others to view and fork your project: However, by setting ...


12

Probably not a Politically Correct answer for this site but ... JUST SAY NO Of course that isn't going to be enough for your customers, you need to present a good business case for them to continue using you even if it's not open source. Consider why the customers might be asking: They are afraid you will go out of business, and they will be left with a ...


10

Can you share more detail about what your customers really want when they ask if your product can be more open source? There are various open source strategies and depending on what your customers are asking for some may be mutually beneficial. Open code, Restrictive license: It is possible to share source code while keeping that code licensed under a ...


10

Open sourcing a project is never evil. You can open source small scripts to full scale applications if you want, and be assured that among the millions of programmers out there, even if it is useful to a few of them, you've succeeded. You have essentially helped someone reduce his/her work by using your code. Regarding the future of your project, well, I'm ...


10

There is a precedent; the unreal engine. Some time ago for a monthly fee and a percentage of your revenue you could use it and have access to the source and discuss it freely between other paying members. It wasn't open source (still isn't) but popular enough that they dropped the monthly fee. In their FAQ it says: What modifications can I make to the ...


9

Unfortunately, many open source projects does not specify the license on github. Legally, anything that comes without a license that provides freedoms to the users defaults to all rights reserved. On GitHub, there are no defaults. Language giving permission to "view and fork" in the GitHub TOS are 1) not a license; and 2) may have no legal effect. Do not ...


8

From my personal experience, where I convinced management at my company (small biotech) to allow me to open source a software package, there are a few points that you need to sell to make your argument convincing: Giving away your software does not give away any competitive advantage. Basically, you need to assure management that your competitors are not ...


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

The conduct page of the npm docs says: Packages must not contain illegal or infringing content. You should only publish packages or other materials to the Service if you have the right to do so. This includes complying with all software license agreements or other intellectual property restrictions. For example, redistributing an MIT-licensed module with ...


8

First of all, you may want to discuss GPL compliance with your company's legal counsel and develop a clear strategy for dealing with GPL code. Complying with the GPL is not necessarily difficult, but it can place surprising obligations on you. The intention of the GPL is effectively an end user protection effort, so that end users of the GPL-covered ...


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

if the LICENSE file is added in a single commit, then git rebase -i is an easy way to remove it. git rebase -i <root commit> will give you a list of all commits after the first one in an editor. find the commit that adds the LICENSE file and delete it from the list. pick 86a75a8 some commit pick 2dc535d some commit pick 264b12f add LICENSE <-- ...


6

Assumming you release your source under an open source license, basically no. The Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition both demand that source code is accessible to everyone who gets distributed a binary. That source might be distributed with the binary, easily accessible on the web (and the binary contains a pointer to this position), or on ...


6

Yes you can push a project without publishing the API key. Developers do it all the time. Make sure you have prominent documentation explaining how other developers can acquire/install their own API key and make sure your source code detects a missing key and provides a helpful error message. If you're using git, you can use a .gitignore file to prevent ...


6

As the author of the software, you can never be in-violation of the GPL. From the FAQ on gnu.org: Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? (#DeveloperViolate) Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The ...


6

This is a simple question of copyright. You have written some code - you can use that code however you wish, and you decided to contribute that to a GPL library. That doesn't change any of your rights to that specific bit of code, which you can still continue to use as you wish. However, the same applies to other people as well - they have written code, and ...


5

It's ambiguous. If you want to be sure that the entire project is licensed, you should be including a LICENSE file in the root directory of you're repository. In the README, you can make it explicit that the project is licensed under that license. If you only put the license in a header of one source file, personally I'd assume that only that file is ...


5

Well, this is basically a question about how to change the business model. Because a software company CAN make money with open source software, but it probably cannot do it always the same way. But first a question for clarification. You write: It led to the development of a system we can use as a base to build custom software for our customers. So you ...


5

So you want to distribute parts from an article which has no license. If the parts are eligible for copyright protection : You are not allowed to distribute these parts at all. If the parts are not eligible for copyright protection (or something like "fair use" etc. applies): You are allowed to distribute these parts. You don’t have to attribute (...


5

The GPLv2 had some advice on the subject: You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names: Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) ...


5

To pull all the comments together, I'll take the question in parts. I usually state something in the Readme which reads like "Code written by [name and alias], licensed under GPLv3" ... Is this sufficient? In the sense that anyone who wants to exercise their free-software rights can safely do so, yes. But it's very helpful if you do a little more, as ...


4

When or whether to reveal an exploit is a security question which has been debated for a long time. See the wikipedia article on Computer Security which discusses "full disclosure" versus "coordinated disclosure" and "Non-disclosure". I've seen "coordinated disclosure" also called "responsible disclosure", but according to the cited article that term has ...


4

If it is your project and doesn't include any external code, you can do what you want with it. You can release it with a license that only allows near-sighted monkeys to use it while hanging from a tree. You can even publish the source under dozens of different licenses, each contradicting all others. The license is only important if you gave the code to ...


4

Your specific question seems to be: Is it legal to publish the project under open source license excluding the key? The answer is clearly: "yes". I don even have an idea why anyone should think otherwise, but there is nothing in the open source licensing model that invalidates your use of the license if you exclude the API license key (or any other ...


4

FLO licenses take a legal, copyright-restricted-by-default work, and give you permission to copy, modify and/or distribute that work. They would not take precedence over criminal law in your country, including laws that criminalise or restrict publication and distribution of certain materials.


4

In some countries it is illegal to develop viruses and other malware. It usually does not matter if open- or closed source. When you are in such a country, you can of course release your software under an open source license anonymously to avoid legal repercussions. But considering that you have no way to legally defend your license without giving up your ...


4

Strictly speaking you do not have to have an identifying copyright notice with your GPL-licensed code... yet a copyright license (which is what most consider the GPL to be) somehow begs for such an identifying copyright notice, does it not? Yet, you can still use a GPL without a copyright notice: this is weird but you are entitled to do this alright. That ...


4

Problems in textbooks are often used in homework or exams. That is the most often cited reason. Besides, having the answers gives the lecturer a (not to be dismissed) advantage in front of the class. The problems themselves are copyrighted material, whatever you write up as solutions is unambiguously based on them. If this is enough to make it a "derivative ...


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