Yes, what is being done on that fork is entirely legal. However, you are also allowed to take the useful changes (like the translation) and incorporate them in your own fork. Then you can advertise ...

When your code contains (or links to) GPL licensed code, then the GPL license requires that you distribute your application under the GPL license. The GPL does not require that you distribute your ...

Yes, you can distribute your software without making the source code public and without giving recipients the right to make changes to your software. The LGPL license explicitly allows such usages of ...

That depends. If you didn't make any changes in your fork of the project, you can just update your fork to include the latest upstream changes and get the license change along with it. If the ...

No, the third clause of the BSD license does not prevent an academic citation of your work. What it prevents is statements along the lines of Because we have made use of tool X by @wimi, they ...

There are two, completely independent, forms of intellectual property rights that can be used to protect software against unwanted copying/modification: Copyright Patents Copyright protects the "...

Copyright protection only comes into play when an actual copy has been made of a work. If two people write a "hello world" program independently of each other, then both programs are protected by ...

To answer the question in the title ("What is the legal definition of a company/organization?"), that depends on the laws in the concerned countries and may also depend on how the company is ...

The AGPL requires that the people interacting with program A over a network have the right (and possibility) to obtain a copy of the source code of A. The AGPL does not strictly define what ...

The GPLv3 license itself states on the topic of later versions: 14. Revised Versions of this License. [...] Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a ...

The BSD-3 license is a permissive license, but even permissive licenses have restrictions that must be observed. By removing your copyrights and license, the person who copied your code has violated ...

In general, the license of the software used to create a file doesn't have any influence on the possible licenses you can distribute that file under. For example, if you use Microsoft Word to write ...

In the large majority of cases, the software of a program and the artwork used by a program are not related to each other where copyright is concerned. An exception might be an image that was created ...

There are no open-source licenses that forbid selling copies of the software, because that kind of restriction is not allowed in a license that is recognized as an open-source license by the community/...

Adding a requirement to notify you when a fork is being made renders a license non-free. The reasoning behind this is that the requirement discriminates against people that, for whatever reason, are ...

As I understand it, you choose these files because they they contain the characteristics you want to test against and they are conveniently already available. But otherwise, you could use any file at ...

Your understanding is incorrect. Patents are intellectual property rights that exist to protect an invention. They are distinct from copyrights, which protect the expression of an idea. Inventions ...

Am I allowed to distribute the project for money under this license? Yes. However, if you distribute/sell binaries, then you may not charge extra for the source code. And, as the MPL license is a ...

This depends on who you accepted contributions from while the code is under the GPL license. If you didn't accept contributions from others and you are the sole copyright holder, then you can change ...

all his app is copyrighted This statement is almost certainly true, in the sense that probably all the code is covered by copyright protection and that one or multiple persons or companies hold those ...

(a) if I am correct about GPL's original "motivation" No you are not correct about the motivation for creating the GPL. To quote Richard Stallman, the father of the GPL license: My work on ...

The LICENSE file in the repository contains the text of two licenses (the Apache 2.0 and the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) and between those is a very important paragraph All image and audio files (including *....

SmartBear Software only has a copyright claim on files that were copied from the Swagger repository. --And even there, I see some problems. More on that later.-- The copyright on any files that are ...

Disallowing commercial use is a restriction that open-source licenses are not allowed to have. Any license that doesn't allow you to use the software for commercial purposes is not considered to be an ...

The license terms of the LGPL license effectively distinguish two different models: You make changes to the LGPL code, or you copy portions of the LGPL licensed code into your own project. In this ...

Copyright transfer and licensing are two very different things. In a copyright transfer, you literally transfer the rights on what you have written to another person or organization. You literally ...

The question is, can anyone fork my repo and translate it into a different language under the Creative Commons License Non-commercial Non-derivative that I have? No. I believe that the copyright laws ...

One way to deal with such a request is to treat is as a "please respect my trademark" request. You create a fork of the complete project, give it a new name and you make it clear that you ...

There are no open-source licenses that have such a "no commercial use" restriction, as such restrictions are limitations on the freedoms that open-source wants to give. A fairly common business model ...

Requiring people to contribute their changes back to the original project is a bit of a problem point for licenses. For open-source license, such a requirement fails the "desert island test" and ...