Hot answers tagged

11

BSD-3 clause is a very permissive license that does not require you disclosing your source code or the source code of the open source libraries. You are not required to allow your users to re-distribute the binaries either. You are required to display any copyright statements from the BSD licensed libraries, and you are required to display the BSD license ...


9

Yes this is correct but you do not need to duplicate the same Apache notice twice. Instead you could use this simpler and more useful form IMHO: Copyright 2017 My Example Company Copyright 2016 Example Previous Company Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the ...


9

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I'm importing the library. Importing the library essentially means you are linking to the GPL library. Hence, your program must also be GPL. Obviously, this site generally prefers if you release all of your software under and open source license, but we realize this is not always feasible. Depending on ...


7

I'm not a lawyer, but here is my two cents. 1)Should I open source all of my main program? If the only interaction between your program and the GPL3 program (or any other open source program) is via a Python subprocess call, then I don't believe you are required to open source your program. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation: ...


7

From a legal perspective: You should attach licensing information to a file in such a way that you cannot successfully deny that you intended to license the file under those terms. Suppose, at some point in the future, you attempt to claim in a court of law that you did not license some particular file under a particular license. The valid methods of ...


6

No example is required, as the GPL itself tells you how to do it, down at the bottom in the section entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs". In short, they recommend you include your copyright notice and three short paragraphs at the beginning of each source file, and a copy of the entire GPL somewhere in the source tree.


5

As you have stated, since the project seems to be abandoned, and you have made efforts to ensure that this is really the case, the next step would be to fork the project. The article Forking Protocol: Why, When, and How to Fork an Open Source Project, provides a good answer to this problem, Why Fork? Answer – Because you cannot get the software to ...


4

No, you do not need to include licenses for code that isn't part of your repository. However, as a service to your users, you can consider mentioning the licenses of your dependencies in the documentation. For this service, it is sufficient to have something along the lines of This library uses the requests library, which is distributed under the Apache ...


4

The term "dual licensing" describes the situation where the entire repository is available under two (or more) licenses and the user gets to choose which license terms they want to comply to. What you have, based on your comments, is different in that you have different licenses that apply to different parts of the repository. This is not very ...


4

The requirement to credit the original author is intrinsic to basically each open-source license. Credits whom credit is due and usually the credits have to be retained and own changes indicated. "I don't want people to make it closed-source in any way" is a strong statement - and IMHO a clear indicator that the MIT choice is not ideal: MIT allows ...


3

Without a license, other people are just allowed to look at it, and click the “fork” button on GitHub. Because the default license is “all rights reserved”. So if you do want other people to be able to use, modify, and share this code, please do add an open source license. For permissive licenses I recommend the Apache 2.0 License because it is legally ...


3

A wheel is either source code or object code. Any form of any work is one or the other, according to the GPL's disjunction: The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work. If a wheel is source code, then sections 4 and 5 apply and you've satisfied your ...


3

How GPL interacts with various kinds of linking is a tricky and not completely settled question. First, a few facts: The GPL license is copyright-based. The GPL license only becomes relevant for you if your actions would otherwise be copyright infringement. Copyright infringement definitively occurs if you copy the library, if your software includes the ...


3

Being paid for your time in writing or customising free software is a completely-acceptable business model; I've been doing it myself for twenty years. I started to get a little lost in the minutiae of python bindings and the extent to which they are like libraries, and then realised there is no problem. If you take some software, S, available under the ...


3

Yes eventually the GPL flows to the calling/importing code at runtime. At rest the import statement has no impact per se.


2

I'm somewhat lost in choosing a proper license for this kind of project. GPL seems too constraining in my taste, as MIT or BSD seems a little too permissive. Are there some licenses that falls in between? While there isn't really a linear scale of permissiveness, you might be looking for the weak-copyleft class of licenses. In short, they require ...


2

If your redistribution combines Boost-licensed code and your own source code in one source or binary package you will need to provide licensing for both. In the simpler case where you would elect to license your own code to be using the Boost license, then there is only one license and possibly multiple copyright statements. You can add these alright in the ...


2

To license each part of your work under a specific license (GPLv3 for some components and MIT for others), one way is to place a header in each file or directory that states the license under which that part is distributed, and then refer to the full license text. For the MIT license, you can just use the entire full license text in your file because it is ...


2

The BSD-3 license requires that you: Include the original copyright Include the full text of the license in source or object code copies Therefore, the only requirements when including a BSD-3 Licensed module in your app, is that you do not remove any copyright notices added by the module, or included within the modules source, and that you include a copy ...


2

With respect to Brandin's comments above, I think this one's pretty cut-and-dried. It's known that the licence of a compiler doesn't transfer to its output, except in certain odd corner cases. If it's true for a compiler, it seems to me no different for a run-time interpreter. The FSF addresses the issue and reaches a similar conclusion, provided you are ...


2

is it acceptable for a PyPI package to include these projects? Yes. Do I have to do anything like including any copyright/license notice for these projects in my package? The files themselves should include a license header. However, you could include a statement in your README that lists the bundled files. I want to release my project under MIT ...


2

Yes, the restrictions come from the licenses of anaconda and the installed packages - you will have to abide by them when you distribute them, modified or not. You need to check them all and specifically you should check that none has a non-commercial clause or license. You will also want to make sure that people get the license information for each package ...


2

Answer converted from third-party comments: Have you read Are we liable for license problems posed by transitive OSS libraries? However, if what you are including is MIT licensed, then meeting the requirements of that license should be very simple. In other words I believe the answer to your question about how to handle the license of vendoredFoo is the ...


2

Can I use a more permissive licence (e.g., BSD/MIT/Apache) for my source code on GitHub, and at the same time use a GPLv2 license for its PyPI binary distribution? Yes, you can. You can even create a separate PyPI binary without FFTW3 support and distribute that under the more permissive license. The GPL license requires that, if you use GPL-licensed code ...


2

If you didn't include code written by others into your codebase, the library licenses you mention don't put significant constraints on the licenses you can use for your code. The main restrictions come from the LGPL licenses and boil down to the requirement that you have to make it legal and possible for the users of your code to replace the LGPL code with ...


1

This isn't coherent. If I get code under e.g. MIT, and compile it myself, I have to comply with MIT for source and binary. If I get binaries under GPL, I have to comply with GPL, and I am entitled to source code under GPL by that same license. But then I get the code, can elect under MIT, and the first case applies. Open Source licenses are designed to ...


1

The problems here are the requirements that "If someone modified this framework it need to be published" and "If someone use this framework for testing - nothing should be done, but it will be nice to know". We have written elsewhere here about publication requirements, and the fact that such a requirement is considered to make a licence non-free. A free ...


1

The GPL license on the library does not strictly imply that you must use the GPL license on the program. The GPL license requires that the rights that users get under the GPL license are extended to all code in the application, but that can also be achieved by using a GPL-compatible open-source license. Additionally, the GPL license requires that you ...


1

"Executable" means, as you guessed, that you can execute this file directly (i.e., it's not just a library or a collection of functions). Specifically, this executable is designed to take input from a log being piped in to it. Since you're running it in PyCharm without that piping, it seems like it does nothing. See the project's wiki entry for an ...


1

In order to comply with the LGPL, you still need to bundle your product with the PySide library source. DLLs and .so files are compiled. You also need to provide the source code of PySide that you are using. But only theirs. You don't have to share your source code, if you only use their library without modifying it. If you don't want to do that then Qt is ...


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