51

Not only are you not required to change the licence, you are not permitted to. The code you took at the time was, according to you, conveyed under GPLv3. You've worked on it, and made a derivative work (in copyright terms), which you can only lawfully distribute under GPLv3 (see GPLv3 s5c). Note also that now upstream have relicensed, you cannot trivially ...


45

I don't think so, no. CC-BY-SA 3.0 allows in s4 that You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License ... This Section ... applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with ...


37

For me, this exposes a weakness in the mental model many coders seem to have about the operation of copyright. Consider a pile of bricks, representing code contributions to a work. In one (surprisingly common) model, each brick is painted in a colour representing its licence status; red for BSD, blue for GPL, green for Apache, and so on. Whoever made and ...


26

Anyone who received the code under the GPLv3 can redistribute it under those terms forever (and so, too, may those recipients, etc.) so if the set of recipients of your code so far is a nonempty set, you may not be able to stop future redistribution of your past code under GPLv3 terms. If no one has downloaded your code, or if anyone who downloaded it didn't ...


13

I do not think you are reading the compatibility table correctly. When I look at the intersection of I want to copy code under GPLv2 and I want to licence my code under LGPLv2.1 I see a box that says OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only. I read that as saying that you can write some code which you release under the LGPLv2.1, but that if you later combine it ...


12

Not all changes are of sufficient novelty to constitute something copyrightable, whether they are additions or deletions. For a simple example, consider any old out of copyright song or hymn of five verses. I could make an 'arrangement' of only the first, second, and fifth verses, but this should not be considered novel enough to be copyrightable. So in ...


9

Wouldn't this change violate the terms of the previous copy-left license? It is indeed true that the GPL itself does not give permission to offer another's work under more permissive terms like the MIT/X11 license. Of course, nothing precludes a copyright holder from allowing their work to be made available under other terms besides the GPL. The relevant ...


6

Based on my reading of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, it is OK to change the license of the Collection but not to change the license of the individual works that comprise the Collection. We have two things to be concerned with, the Collection and the Work, both of which are defined in the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Sections 4(a), 4(c), and 4(d) are the relevant ...


6

While MadHatter's answer covers the general case of a changing upstream license fairly well, it's worth noting that GPLv3 has a special compatibility clause with AGPLv3: 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under ...


5

Yes. If something is truly public domain, then there is no copyright it at all. Note that only your changes are under the new copyright, not the original public domain code. However, it sounds like you might have found code that is posted with no license. If this occurs, technically the default copyright is "all rights reserved". In that case you should ask ...


5

Ah, the joys of licensing lacking salience during academic code development. Alice has developed a software, 'Sierra' - starting from a preexisting educational code The first question is the licensing status of the code Alice imported. If that was under a copyleft licence, everything that followed may have to be distributed under a similar licence, or ...


5

Legally, as the sole copyright holder you can apply any license any time and even in retrospect. You cannot withdraw the license given to people previously, though; the latter means if you published under GPL and handed out the source, that person can henceforth distribute the source in perpetuity provided the person obeys the license given. The two ...


5

You are not bound, as a user, by your own licence. It is like having a contract with yourself: both parties need to agree, for you to change the contract. I decided to break it, I agree, done. However it may put obligations on you as a supplier. I would recommend sticking with GPL3. If you think it limits you, then don't worry it does not. Weak Free-...


4

The Apache license allows use for any purpose, so using the code in a thesis is fine. However, it is common to cite relevant[1] libraries and software that you used in an academic context. This is entirely an academic thing and has nothing to do with licenses. You can cite the project website or the code repository website as you would cite any other ...


4

No. You will have to do a clean-room implementation of the substitute MIT-licensed library. That means to not look at all on the existing library except the public interface defintion. You might have made this approach already impossible by looking at the existing code. If you look at the existing code, it usually can be considered already a derivative. ...


4

What is the process? Is this as trivial as receiving written permission to fork as of a specified commit? Yes, the process does not have to be more complicated than that, although it would be good if you have some way to prove that the permission to relicense was given by the same person that holds the copyrights on the corresponding contributions. If it ...


3

I have already written on the subject of relicensing; if you read the whole of that question you can see my answer reflects a viewpoint which is widely-, but far from universally-, held. From that viewpoint I don't see a problem with what you want to do. In the first place, the Ritchey EPL v2 does not require you to convey either the code itself, or ...


3

The table is basically wrong. The header says "I want to license my code under LGPL v2.1" so the answer is "no". Including the possibility of a relicense completely muddles things and rather defeats the purpose of the table. If you already own the copyright, as is assumed for the top header, then you can relicense it to whatever you want. It's basically ...


3

The basis of copyright protection is that the result of human creativity gets protected from being appropriated by others. This means that if you apply a purely mechanical transformation on some source code, then you are not creating a new work as far as copyrights are concerned and thus you can't claim any rights on the transformation. Any modifications you ...


3

Can the plugin be MIT instead of GPL3? Yes. Plugins for GPL applications can be under any GPL-compatible license, assuming the interaction between the application and the plugin is such that the GPL terms apply also to the plugin. The GPL license requires that the combination of application+plugin is distributed under the GPL terms, but that does not mean ...


3

The 3BSD licence requires (in clause 1) that your copyright notices be preserved, and that some licence text be reproduced, whenever your code is copied. But it does not require that that licence text actually apply to the copy. I believe that this quote from @MadHatter is subtly wrong. Yes, the 3BSD license is a permissive license that allows a recipient ...


2

What would be the right way to change the license to e.g. the GPLv1 if that is even possible? You can just change the license. You wrote all the code. Can I just relicense all future code? You can offer any code you wrote under any license you want. The GPLv3 is not an exclusive license and it doesn't prevent you from offering the same code or different ...


2

If I want to make a PRO version with more features of my already existing open-sourced MIT licensed app, what changes should I make to the license and code? Should I fork and maintain a private repo with different license? You should maintain at least a separate (private) repository for the code of the PRO features. If this PRO repository needs to contain ...


2

While in some sense this is really a question for Law SE, the common-sense version of it is a matter of whether there are original ideas in the deletion and whether the changeset is expressible (not necessarily as a patch, just in some comprehensible form) in a form that's insufficiently original/creative to be subject to copyright. As the extreme cases, ...


2

What this author has signed in not a Contributor License Agreement, giving the project additional (non-exclusive) rights in addition to what they get under the AGPL, but a transfer of copyrights (CTA, Copyright Transfer Agreement). This means that the AGPL project owns the copyrights on the contribution and the author has just as many rights as anyone else ...


2

The author has the copyright, so he can relicense from the license point of view. But the CLA is not a license, but a contract. And you need to read the contract to know what it allows and what not. One possiblity is, that the contributor signed that he will not license the code other than to the company the CLA is for or AGPL for the general public. Another ...


1

When you declare a dependency on package X, there are two possibilities Package X has a strong copyleft license, like the GPL or AGPL: These licenses have the requirement that the final binary application is licensed under respectively the GPL or AGPL license. As a result, they put a restriction on the licenses you can choose for your own code. Any build ...


1

It sounds like these are all business-logic rules of Azure's VM-orchestration software. Since the software within the VM is GPL-licensed, you are legally free to download it and use it in a totally different deployment. As you've described the situation, there is no particular obstacle to doing that (beyond the general difficulty of copying and modifying an ...


1

The process needed is one where you get agreement by each involved person that you can re-license their work (or get a separate proprietary license). You might want to be able to prove this to a court, should someone come and claim that you are conducting a license infringement.


1

The Flora license is a permissive open source license that is comparable to the Apache 2.0 license. The material difference between those licenses is in the patent license they contain, because the patent license in the Flora license appears to be restricted to software running on Tizen products. The Flora licence, like the Apache license, has a few ...


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