18

My ideal would be something that requires attribution only in source form, but not in compiled/binary/object form. The Boost Software License has this very feature baked right into it, no modification needed. It is “very similar to the BSD license and the MIT license” (direct quote), but was designed with these very use-cases in mind: Must require that the ...


16

The MIT license doesn't require source code to be published. It only requires that the license notice is kept intact. MIT-licensed binaries without source code are rare – no source kinda defeats the purpose of open source – but it's also not the first time I've heard about this construction. Even for licenses like the GPL that do require source code, it's ...


9

My first thought was that a simple variant of BSD could probably do the job for you, but then I caught myself. It's kind of you, that you don't want to saddle people offering compiled versions of your code with any kind of attribution requirement, but I advise strongly against attempting to embed that in some form of custom licence. In this talk at FOSDEM (...


7

The FSF includes Freedom #1 in their Free Software Definition: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A software artifact is not inherently free or nonfree, but the terms under which it is possible (legally and practically) to use, ...


6

Google Chrome is not fully open source, but closely based on the open-source Chromium project, which itself is built around the open-source Blink engine. Chromium still includes tight integrations with many Google services though. But Chromium is perfectly usable as a browser. Other than Google Chrome, a large number of browsers and similar projects are ...


5

It’s not possible to validate it 100% but you can get close. As a prerequisite, the app needs to support reproducible builds. That means you need the information how to compile and package the target app exactly the same way the maintainer did, including compiler parameters. For simple apps, the answer given by @filip is true. You compile the app and hash (...


4

As curiousdannii notes above, rsync is released under GPLv3, so the distributor has source distribution obligations. Unfortunately, those obligations are principally to the licensors, these being the rightsholders in the original code. So first of all, as noted, you should look on the manufacturer's website. Many companies take their free-software ...


3

As no (copyrightable) part of the generator makes it into the output, the license on the generator code does not affect the license of the output in any way. The license on the templates is a different matter. As much of the content of the template does make it into the output, the output is legally a derived work of the template used to generate it. That ...


3

No. If your code works with the GPL program, then the whole program must be released under GPL, which you can't do because ProprietarySDK is non-GPL. There is a similar issue with including ProprietarySDK in your program: you will have to check what their licence allows. The FSF's position: "If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are ...


2

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 ...


2

Modification, deletion or addition of any file to a source code counts as modification of the source code as a whole. Thus in that case you are bound by what is allowed by the original license when it comes to distributing modified versions of the software and the source code. When making modifications and distributing them, the Apache license in particular ...


2

If you are referring to this project https://github.com/powershell/powershell, then the answers to your two questions are: Licensing: That project is MIT licensed: https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE.txt. So far, there has never been any licensing issue with running MIT licensed software on any Linux to my knowledge. Embrace... : ...


2

Can I use a more permissive licence (e.g., BSD/MIT/Apache) for my source code on GitHub, and at the same time use a GPLv2 license for its PyPI binary distribution? Yes, you can. You can even create a separate PyPI binary without FFTW3 support and distribute that under the more permissive license. The GPL license requires that, if you use GPL-licensed code ...


2

In the meantime, the project has been relicensed under MIT and patent grants were removed. The original PATENTS file is here: https://github.com/facebook/draft-js/commit/585af35c3a8c31fefb64bc884d4001faa96544d3#diff-7373d27f0ea94a5b649f893e20fffeda Curiously, the MIT licence does not provide patent protection for contributors. So this seems to be a step ...


2

The Apache License 2.0 does not require source code to be disclosed. However, open-source licenses like the Apache license are intended for, well, open source software. For proprietary (non-open) software, it would likely be better to get a lawyer to write custom licensing terms. Even when not disclosing your source code, the Apache license has some ...


2

Would it be possible to release the generator's source code (generator logic + templates) under say GPLv3 without having the generated code to be GPLv3 licensed too? Yes of course. But this is a legal question and I am not a lawyer Typical examples include: C preprocessors : GNU cpp (part of GCC) is GPLv3+ licensed, but not its output (which is valid C ...


2

Yes, there is a difference. If you mention a dependency in package.json (or a similar file that gets used by a mackage manager), you only need to have the right to download & use the dependency, not the right to redistribute it. That latter right is usually not granted for proprietary software. you can automatically get the latest released version of ...


2

An FFmpeg binary that has been built with both --enable-gpl and --enable-nonfree cannot be distributed. Not at all. The GPL has the requirement that all code must be available under a GPL-compatible license, but --enable-nonfree adds some codecs with a GPL-incompatible license. The result is something you can not distribute without violating the copyright ...


2

Yes, the license applies to the header as well. The easiest way to satisfy the license terms is to copy the project's MIT license directly into a comment block in your modified header file. You only have to include the license notice, but are not required to publish your modifications or your dotfiles under the MIT license.


1

Yes! They make It easy to build the project. Source code includes those things commonly needs to create a binary which are very individual to your project - like project files or built and configure scripts


1

This isn't coherent. If I get code under e.g. MIT, and compile it myself, I have to comply with MIT for source and binary. If I get binaries under GPL, I have to comply with GPL, and I am entitled to source code under GPL by that same license. But then I get the code, can elect under MIT, and the first case applies. Open Source licenses are designed to ...


1

The GPL does not carry forward to things created by software licensed under the GPL (unless the output contains other GPL licensed code, like libraries. Although, most examples of that have the linking exception applied for this reason.) This is for practical, as well as ideological reasons. Imagine if MS Word 2009™ (or other word processor) required you to ...


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