8

To quote from Wikipedia: Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. So the copyright in what you've written covers the creative aspect of what you've written, but not the idea(s) therein expressed. If the code is entirely your own work, then as far as copyright is concerned, you are ...


3

One point that you are missing is that "trivial" things do not create a copyright of their own; nobody gets a copyright on VLOOKUP() as a whole just by using it in a YouTube video. The rest of your examples you're pretty much correct on - some of them you can use under CC-BY SA (which as you note is a problem for code) or you have to reimplement ...


3

Just as an addition to MadHatter's good answer, you should cite the original paper where the algorithm was published in the help files for the commands or the package using it, although this is not a copyright issue. The help files are somehow academic publications and intellectual honesty rules for academic publications apply, and hence the need to cite. If ...


3

I'd consider that a license violation to use CC BY-NC licensed material in such way. The CC BY-NC license says already in its name that the licensed content must not be used in commercial context. There exist a study from CC which gives general interpretation of the NC clause as On a scale of 1-100 where 1 is “definitely noncommercial” and 100 is “...


3

There're several different JRE available with different licenses. Two most prominent are: OpenJDK is open-source (GPL). You can use it without having to pay for it. Oracle JRE use different license (https://www.oracle.com/downloads/licenses/oracle-javase-license.html). I am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand, it is still free for usage. As for JDK, ...


3

Plausible, an open source alternative to Google analytics, released a blog post detailing their move from MIT licensing to the AGPL (Affero GNU Public License). In it, they have the following claim: Here are a couple of events that made us aware of the risks with a permissive open source license: There’s been at least one case where a corporation has taken ...


2

I'm going to answer your question from the perspective: what is the risk to open sourcing the technology that your friend's business has developed. I try to tackle your more specific question at the end. TL,DR If your friend's company is built around the technology the company would open source, it's a real risk that their company would not be financially ...


2

Yes, you can link CC-SA content along with your code. Weak/strong copyleft is a term that only exists for software, because it only defines an exception to the copyleft. To use CC-SA content, you just have to give credit to the original author and share the content (modified or unmodified) under the same license. Not your code. The easiest way to do so ...


2

Almost all text editors have that look and feel. If your application were to violate MS copyrights, Microsoft would have already had many other text editors pulled from the market already.


2

While the term "license" is most frequently applied to program source code text, it also covers visual assets and such. An argument could be made that, for example, if the title bar of a program includes its icon, and you are distributing a screenshot of the program, your screenshot is a derived work of the icon and is thus subject to the license that the ...


2

Question: How do I go about placing a GPL license notice in the file containing those [public domain] subroutines If the file only contains public domain code, then you should not add a GPL license notice nor a copyright line in the file. Instead, you should put a notice in the file that the contents are in the public domain. This does not conflict with the ...


2

I see several issues here. Firstly, there is no bar on using GPL software for commercial purposes. You can sell it; you must simply honour the GPL when you do so, which means giving your customers access to source, on the GPL's terms. So I think when you say commercial you mean proprietary, ie, without giving your customers access to the source of your ...


2

As I understand it, no, it's not. The clue is in the name: it's a runtime library exception (RTLE) not a compile-time exception. If you statically link your binary with GPLv3-plus-RTLE-covered libraries, not only will you be distributing GPLv3-covered code (the library's object files), but you will also have created a work which in many people's eyes is a ...


1

I'm sorry to disagree publicly, but Bart's answer, while excellent in many respects, seems wrong in one: you may (and in my opinion should) put a GPL header in the files you acquired under PD but are now redistributing as part of your project. If you choose not to, you will need to make it clear that they are public domain, by adding a comparable "...


1

It looks like to me as if html2canvas contains code from Microsoft's TypeScript project. I don't know if the inclusion was manual or via an automatic tool, but it makes html2canvas a derivative of TypeScript, in copyright terms. TypeScript is licensed under Apache2. This requires that any derivative work include the Apache licence text (s4a) and the ...


1

A software which includes (links to) a GPL-licensed library, whether directly or indirectly (thus as a library called by another library), needs to be released under GPL. You link GPL-licensed software, and as such your library is a derivative of those and needs to follow the license terms; the license gives you no right to distribute it under different ...


1

I agree that the threaded reading and search facilities of many mailing list web interfaces vary between bad and appalling. But the principal advantage of mailing lists over web fora, however good the forum, is that with a mailing list the choice of client is yours, whereas with a web forum you get whatever software the admin has decided to run, for better ...


1

Better fork the repository (it is under an open source license, right?) and hack away at your repository. Working on "company" repo but not being part of "company" could get you in trouble (e.g. if management changes to one even less open-source friendly). Much worse if it isn't open to the public!


1

As far as I understand, the copyright holder to the file (there might be several) should add a line "Copyright 2020 John Smith. Licensed under conditions" to it somewhere. If no explicit permissions, nobody has any right on the file's contents. Not read it, not change it, not pass a copy to somebody else. If somebody makes a (substantial) change, add their ...


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