Hot answers tagged

12

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. Depending on your use case, there may be a way to use the library without licensing your entire project under the GPL. For example, you could create a wrapper for this ...


11

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 ...


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

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 ...


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

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.


7

Not by virtue of exercising the copyright on their contributions, no. They could if you were an employee of theirs, or if they had some other valid grounds for being able to forbid you, but not simply by virtue of their copyright. ActiveState have already unilaterally granted you the right to use that code through the above licensing declaration. Like all ...


6

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 ...


6

You can definitely use Pylint to check a program under any license. However, integrating Pylint into a test suite might require a bit of care. Pylint is a program that reads some files, analyzes the files, and prints out various warnings. Those files happen to be another program, but there isn't really any connection between Pylint and the program being ...


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 ...


5

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 ...


4

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


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 ...


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

I did not modify any of those modules; I want to publish the .py file only (no binaries). If you will not be including copies of numpy and Matplotlib, then you need not concern yourself with their permissive licenses. Neither license imposes restrictions on derivative works such as your script. To see this, let's start by walking through the BSD license: ...


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

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 ...


3

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 ...


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

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

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 ...


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

Nothing makes Y GPL, short of the author of Y licensing it under GPL or a court order requiring them to do so. Using a GPL code in Y without licensing Y under GPL makes such use illegal. This only affect the author of Y if they explicitly enable such use, e.g. they distribute Y alongside with X, or Y is distributed alone while X is a well-known GPL library ...


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

"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 ...


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

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 ...


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