Hot answers tagged

10

The Creative Common licenses and thus especially CC-BY ones were designed as licenses for creative work like texts, like images, models etc. That includes of course work like texts in blog posts - and they are very suited to that, so go for that. I've no statistics, but as popularity of usage goes, wikipedia definitely is a good example, as is this site As ...


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 ...


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

You've already realised that digital credentials are the easy part of the problem to solve. They can be held by multiple people, each of whom can then perform authoritative activites with them. There are even secret-sharing protocols, such as those that allow any-M-of-N holders to collaborate to reconstruct the secret and act with authority. Holding ...


4

OK, let's look at your legal obligations. CC BY-SA 4 says in s3(a)(2) that You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the ...


4

No, you cannot distribute GPL-covered code in an MIT-licensed project. You have to use GPL (or a compatible license) for the project as a whole, if you include GPL-covered libraries. I can also be argued that running a website is distributing the code, so even combining it on the front-end of a running web server is at least very fishy and must not be done; ...


3

In a word: no. The FSF advocates for LibreJS annotations because of the special place web browser scripting plays in the lives of web users. The linga franca for browser scripting happens to be JavaScript. Server-side code gets its own consideration from the FSF but the use of JavaScript as a server-side language does not merit more consideration than any ...


2

A quick comparison will show that the licence is the very common three-clause BSD (3BSD) licence. The author of the software has modified the licence to incorporate his actual name, which is unnecessary, but the rights granted are those granted by 3BSD. I mention this because much is written about 3BSD, some or all of which may now be of use to you. As I ...


2

Does the GPL say they must release program X and plugin sources? In brief, the GPL says that anyone who receives the binaries of X or derivative works of X must also receive the sources. This answer deals with the issue of whether or not the plugin is a derivative work of X; other answers on this site also address the issue. Does the GPL say they must ...


2

Technically, as long as you have Gatsby-generated files, you need to retain the license information that they are under. However, you are allowed to amend the LICENSE file to make it clear which files that MIT license applies to and what licenses apply to the rest of the files. On the other hand, if the files you mention can be written only in a very few ...


2

Note: I am not Lawyer and nothing below is legal advice. Each library is likely to have its own license. Some licenses (GPL, for instance) would require you to opensource your code should you use libraries under such license. Depending on the license, you may (or may not) be required to give a credit or state author(s) copyright in some way. For instance, ...


2

In a web context, it is not always clear where one program starts and the other ends. However, since content in an iframe runs in a separate browsing context, it is likely a separate Work in the sense of the AGPL. Thus, loading an image editor in an iframe would likely be OK, and would probably not require you to publish source code for the other software. ...


2

Bearing in mind that we're a free software website, and that our answers may well be tinged by a deep belief that freedom is good, a quick perusal of those terms brings one thing clearly to my mind: these are commercial services, and they want your money. They allow you to make some fettered uses of their stock images, but eventually, you hit their line in ...


2

VLC is a bit more complicated than most pieces of free software. Their wiki describes how you can use git to download a copy of the entire source tree, at which point the changelog can be had with git log (I've tried it, and it works). No doubt if you're more experienced with git than I am (and nearly everyone is more experienced with it than I) you can ...


2

The license of a program has no effect on the license of the material processed with the program. For example, I can write a blog post with Emacs (GPL-licensed), convert it to HTML with Pandoc (GPL-licensed) and serve the pages from the Busybox HTTPD server (GPL-licensed) or from within a Wordpress instance (GPL-licensed). And none of these affect the ...


2

If by "what's required from an open source license" you mean "what are the requirements from a license so it can be considered an open source license", the OSI website provides a definition of open source. By definition, a license that isn't listed as approves by OSI is not an open source license (although that doesn't mean such licenses ...


2

The GPL and AGPL permit commercial use, as do all licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative. If you want to prohibit commercial use or distribution, you will need to look outside the FLOSS community for licensing terms. Since you mentioned Fancybox, I should note that the author of that software has made significant ...


1

GPL does not include the right for users (of webservices) to request the source code nor a any need for you to publish it somewhere. So it's totally fine -- if you don't want to -- to don't publish or offer users to download changes you have done at Wordpress or of your written plugins. The reason here is, that user in terms of GPL is the admin or somebody ...


1

You have created a combined work - the web page. The web page is a derivative of a GPL work, because it contains parts of it. All derivative works of GPL works must be GPL. There is an exception - if your use is "mere aggregation" then you do not need to make the entire derivative work GPL (only the combined part). An example of "mere ...


1

You've written a webpage which contains some of your own JS. This JS requires a call provided by a third-party library, published under GPL, which you also make available on your server. Firstly, you have GPL obligations with respect to the existing library. These include (but are not limited to) making (unminified) source available on demand, and ...


1

If the library is under GPL, anything linking to it must be GPL per FSF's interpretation that linking creates a derivative work. That hasn't been tested in court, so... You can ship code (or object only) program under non-GPL, and ask the user to do the linking. They can do as they please, so it wouldn't be an overt violation of GPL, which only restricts ...


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