That is the Discourse forum software.

Do I need to pick a license, if I don't plan to publish the book? No. What would be a good license? A Creative Commons license is appropriate for non-software works. Use their license chooser to ...

If you do not distribute the software, do whatever you want. It's fine. Even if you do distribute, it is allowed, but the software as a whole will have to be licensed under the GPL.

The EPL is not compatible with the GPL. The MPL is compatible with the GPL. For that reason I would recommend the MPL if you could choose between the EPL or MPL.

Since the images themselves are seperate works, you can do that.

Let's say that someone uses your project (licensed under your custom license) in an MIT licensed application. Since the MIT license explicitly allows the software to be distributed closed source, your ...

You cannot use the GNU GPL in a plugin for a non-GPL program. However, you can use the GNU LGPL license.

It is legal if you use the font preinstalled in iOS. In this case, Monotype is wrong.

Is it GPL compliant to distribute any non-GPL, closed-source linked library, which falls under the system library exception, with GPL code? A library distributed with the program does not fall under ...

The Free Software Foundation has the answer to your question: When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free ...

This would not be a free license. However, you can choose the GNU GPL which will allow redistribution, but it has to stay open source.

You have to use the GNU GPL version 2 or later. A theme or plugin is a derivative work of WordPress because it uses WordPress functions, hooks, etc. But this doesn't prevent you from selling your ...

No, although you do have to release the source code of the library itself. However, your application must allow someone to use their own, modified version of the library.

Unlike the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL doesn't require that the software as a whole is licensed under it.

You just need to keep the notice in the source files. You do not need to put anything in your application.

Dual licensing GPL and a commercial license might make sense. People can use the software in open source projects free of charge, but have to pay for a commercial license to use the software in ...

Here are the options simplified: Attribution: Attribution is required for all six licenses. Good attribution should include title, author, source, and license. ShareAlike: Derivatives must be under ...

You can include the documentation in your application if the application is licensed under the GPLv3. This is one of two licenses BY-SA is compatible with, the other being the Free Art License.

Place it in the root directory of your project.

You should choose the YouTube standard license and then add in the description the license.

Prohibiting redistribution makes the software non-free. The furthest you can go is the GNU Affero General Public License.

The server side app is under the GPL, not under the AGPL, so no, you do not need to distribute source code.

If it would require private use, then it's not a free license. Make your own license in that case.

They use the same license as the video.

You could choose any license. As the copyright holder, you are free to do whatever you want with your own software.

Requirements for free software: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you ...

The requirement to make the source code available for private use does not apply to the GPL. However, the GNU Affero General Public License requires making the source code available for network use. ...

Anything that uses GNU GPL-licensed software must be licensed under the GNU GPL or a compatible license.

OpenJDK is licensed under the GNU GPL, therefore you must use the GNU GPL. The other libraries you listed are licensed under GNU GPL-compatible licenses, except for Spring, licensed under Apache 2.0, ...

The GNU LGPL is the same as the GNU GPL, but it allows inclusion in a non-GNU GPL-licensed application. But the library itself has to still be available under the terms of either the GNU GPL or the ...