New answers tagged

-2

IANAL. The terms of MIT license state: Permission is hereby granted [...] to modify [and] sublicense [...] copies of the Software, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. If you memorized the entire text of the original ...


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 ...


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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included