Hot answers tagged

14

The quote appears to be misleading. According to “Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license?” in the GPL FAQ, early drafts of the GPLv3 allowed an AGPL-like restriction to be added to the license (compare the Additional Terms mechanism in Section 7 of the GPLv3). This was dropped during the public review process: some ...


9

Every lawyer I consulted with always gave me the same answer: JavaScript in web page is code redistributed to whoever loads this page in their browser. So yes, this is unambiguously redistribution. And to answer the underlying question that you did you ask: yes, you have to comply with any specific FLOSS licensing requirements for this piece of JavaScript ...


9

Lawyers have told me than in most cases the GPL of a JavaScript library running in the browser does not impact the code running on the server side.... within reason: for instance if you use something like meteor where the code runs either on the server or the client, this may not apply. Or for instance if you modified the JS library to interface with your ...


9

Running an application on a server is never considered distribution, and you're not bound by the terms of the LGPL for distribution. Please do note that running javascript in the browser does mean distribution. I'm not familiar with the framework, so I don't know if that's relevant here. The only widely used open source license which puts obligations on ...


8

No. From GPLv3’s Definitions section (bold emphasis mine): To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. So this basic permission applies: You may make, run and propagate covered works that ...


7

Under the LGPL, running the software under a web server of any sort does not qualify as distribution. As noted in Martijn's answer, passing JavaScript and any markup to create the webpage does qualify as distribution. Here's a small flow chart that might help: If your code running on the server is LGPL, this does not count as distribution. However, if ...


7

The GPL only triggers when you distribute a program that is derivative of the GPL'ed program, e.g. by linking to it. You are free to run a GPL-licensed program without having to accept the license. If the GPL'ed program is client-side JavaScript, then you are distributing the GPL'ed code and possibly derivative code to your visitors. You are only allowed to ...


7

No. If Bootstrap were conveyed under GPL, or another copyleft free licence, and if templates were (in copyright terms) derivative works of Bootstrap, then the templates would be required to be conveyed under GPL also, and could be distributed as you have described (though the buyers in your example would have to resell them with GPL rights attached, which ...


6

Most of your questions already have answers so I will just link to them: Is there any difference between the GPL and AGPL for code executed in the browser? For code in the browser, there is no practical difference between GPL and AGPL 3.0. So yes, you have to distribute the JS source code when using this library. If a part of the client-side code is ...


6

You might be able to try one of the following. Use a shared repository like GitHub or similar and then your domain name is not required for the project to continue i.e. graceful degradation of service. Try gifting the domain name to a reliable/established group (might need to pay for a few years domain ownership first). Don't rely on the domain name at all. ...


6

First, let's look at your content concerns: Would GPL require that all the content also be licensed under the GPL? No, all variations of the GPL has some clause that ensures that any content is excluded from the license. Here is the text used in AGPLv3: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their ...


6

Yes. The number of sites that use a GPL-licensed theme is not limited by the GPL. Using a GPL-licensed theme on only one site is exactly as legal as using it on one hundred different sites. Using a theme on a site is actually redistributing that theme to the site's visitors. Since the GPL is a free software license, it must not place restrictions on the ...


5

Firstly, and foremost, IANAL/IANYL. That said, as I understand this question, you have been asked by a third party to do some commercial website development, the website to be hosted on drupal, and the work to include some modifications to the drupal system itself (yes, I know you said ... or wordpress, but let's assume a stationary target). According to ...


5

The Short Answer: No The Long Answer: The derivative definition is based on copyright law and not a license, and I can't see how a remote web services interface could ever be construed as anything other than separate from the server involved. You are interacting with a service, not including it in your code. A service provider MAY be able to constrain ...


5

Copyright isn't the right tool for this: trademarks are. Copyright governs how code and data may be used, but trademarks govern the regulation of names and identities generally. With a registered trademark you may be able to petition that the copycat's misleading sites and domains can be taken down, especially if you can demonstrate that they are harmful. ...


5

Keep it simple: CC-BY 3.0 means you have to give attribution. It doesn't require you to share any code or whatsoever. Thus it is generally deemed appropriate to have e.g. in your page footers a line which reads like: This page uses the CC-BY 3.0 licensed template HTML5UP. In your repository itself I'd be explicit in the LICENSE.txt All content ...


4

AFAIK, there is currently no license having a slot reserved for a backlink URL that is recognized by the FSF or OSI. It is not hard to create such a license. Adding a slot for the backlink URL to the ISC License and altering the permission statement as follows will do it. Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose ...


4

This is really about a practical problem caused by the way GitHub's forking works, together with how the gh-pages branches automatically creates a public page. If you believe that this arrangement makes it far too easy1 for users to accidentally republish your website against your wishes, then by all means look for a different hosting arrangement as you've ...


4

The following is the answer I got from FSF, with small edits. Answer was provided by a volunteer with "[this] is not legal advice" disclaimer. GPL-ed JS is used with other JS without cross calls. If Javascript software licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL is served from the same document alongside an independent Javascript work is may be the ...


4

When I run this web application on a private company network and its is only available internally to my company employees? No, see below. When I run this application as a public web site on the open internet? No. Neither of these cases is an example of "conveying" (or "distribution" as it used to be called in GPLv2): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....


4

As a general rule, the product of running a GPL code does not have to be GPL-licensed. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL


4

If I use this theme, do I have to keep his license or make my own? You would have to keep his license -- the MIT license -- for the theme you are using, but that doesn't apply to your content (unless you want to use the MIT license for your content). Can I put my own copyright logo on the bottom, because technically my content is original although the ...


4

In general, the LGPL requires you to offer human-readable source code. You could perform that offer of source code using the exact same HTTP endpoint that serves the code used by your website in production. However, consider two important points: You must include the required attribution and licensing header information in your source code as required by ...


4

As discussed on the other thread referenced, if your company created the entire GPL library, and still owns the entire copyright in it, it does not restrict your company in any way -- it's simply a permission your company has given others. In your case, there are other authors. If all of those other authors indeed licensed their copyrights under permissive ...


4

You are likely liable if applications that you run and operate, that store user-supplied data, have that data exfiltrated. The exact nature of the liability depends on the applicable jurisdiction(s): in Europe (and now that the GDPR is in effect also if you cater for European visitors) things can get quite hairy, while the US is generally less-sensitive to ...


4

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. GPL is a copyleft license. It means that you legally obliged to distribute derivative work under the same or equivalent license (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works for instance). LGPL is a more relaxed license in this regard and allows ...


3

No Full text of the AGPL 3.0 is here Below is just a paraphrased summary IANAL & IANYL but as I understand it: There are 2 times that the AGPL makes people release code. Section 10: If you convey a modified or unmodified version of the work it will be under the this (AGPL) license. Section 13: If if you modify the Program, your modified version must ...


3

Assuming all the content is your original creation, I think it would be very appropriate. If you want to encourage its reuse, giving a single link that automatically tar/zips up the entire site for download would be helpful. IANAL/IANYL, of course.


3

About JS: As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are released under the ...


3

If not stated differently, websites contents (this including photos) must be considered copyrighted by the owner/maintainer of the website and you can't use them straight away. It is always a good (and nice) thing to ask the owner/maintainer for licence term and/or permission to share that photo on Wikipedia. Google allows to filter the results based on ...


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