New answers tagged

5

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 ...


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 ...


50

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 ...


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 ...


0

Yes, it is possible to make an open source project into a closed source project. The copyright holder can change the license of a project at any time, or cease to distribute source code of new releases. New releases can therefore be made closed source. Neither of these actions affect previous releases of the project which were distributed under open source ...


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 ...


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.


0

Is there any possibility where I have to open source my proprietary application code in any case, when I use open source (MIT/Apache) software which in-term uses dependency libraries (which are restrictive) as in the above example? Yes. If your product contains code under a strong copyleft license (like the GPL or AGPL), either directly or via a (...


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. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included