New answers tagged

1

The other answers between them cover the area but a simple non-lawyer class answer is hard to easily discern from them. I'd summarise the situation as. For any code where people have already accepted the initial agreement and made copies of the code, that agreement stands irrevocably. In all other cases (no agreement has been accepted) you can do as you ...


1

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 ...


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-...


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 ...


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 ...


12

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 ...


5

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 ...


42

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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included