Hot answers tagged

39

You do not need to display the license in the GUI, under any circumstances. For software licensed under the Apache License Version 2.0 (APLv2), it is quite okay to modify the software in the way that you suggest. That license encourages modification. The license assures your freedom to remove "powered by SVG Edit" in your modified version. However, see the ...


22

Bad news, dude. It isn't your code. Only the owner of the code in question can relicense that code, and you are not the owner of the code in question. You accepted the code under the terms of the GPL. You modified it, and forked it, under the terms of the GPL. You are now stuck with the terms of the GPL, and one of those terms is that you can't ...


17

Can I use them in my commercial app? It depends on what you intend to do with the software that you produce. Firstly, neither ASL1, GPL or LGPL make any restrictions on what you can use software to do inside your organization. The restrictions are all on code that is distributed outside of your organization. For GPL the restriction is that if you ...


16

The Apache 2.0 license is very different from the GPL license, in at least two aspects: Under the Apache 2.0 license, you are allowed to distribute binaries without providing the source code with it. (Under the GPL, you must always provide the source code) The GPL license carries over to the entire application. The Apache 2.0 license does not and applies ...


15

Just say thanks...everybody wins IANAL... so I will not comment of the legal obligations of the Apache licence. Good etiquette in using opensource software is to at least give credit where credit is due. This I think is a bare minimum. As such, Whatever you do I think it would be good practice to mention and give thanks to the different projects, ...


14

Commercial use is any use that is a part of revenue generating activity, that is, making money. It includes all use by for-profit organizations (companies) and use by self-employed natural persons as part of their paid work. It has nothing to do with the environment. Using Linux to run a web shop is a commercial use and using Windows at home for watching ...


12

First, the standard disclaimer: IANAL but a random stranger. I have been packaging an AGPL application(*) recently. It uses third party libraries distributed under jQuery, MIT, BSD (and some other) licenses. Here is how I have proceeded. My main intents when I designed this were: be compliant and be fair. While the first one should be sufficient, the ...


9

License wise, unless you are making really major changes and have a really strong opinion on the license that you want to distribute those under, you should keep to the original license of the project you fork from. The code you copied must remain under that license anyway, so using a separate license for your changes is mostly a lot of additional hassle. ...


8

If you take a look at Shutterstock's licence comparison table you notice that they pose some limitations on incorporating images into software in their Standard licence: Incorporated into software as a background image or splash screen: Standard -- Image may not be reproduced more than 250,000 times Enhanced -- no limitation on ...


8

No, it is not necessary to include the license in every file. This is a recommended practice, because it ensures that if somebody is viewing one of the files from your project in isolation from the rest they will be able to identify the terms of use for it, but in the end, as long as you do something that makes it clear what the intended license terms are, ...


8

From the EPLv1.0 REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and b) its license agreement: i) effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties and conditions, ...


8

Translations (both to a different natural language and to a different programming language) are considered to be Derived Works. When creating a derived work that is so radically different from the original as a translation to a different (not closely related) programming language results in, it is actually quite hard to understand how the requirements from ...


6

From MIT : It is a permissive license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software provided all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms. From Apache : Like any free software license, the Apache License allows the user of the software the freedom to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, ...


6

Unless your project has been using "Mozilla 1.1 only", it is implicitly using "Mozilla 1.1 or higher". Therefore, the project can be upgraded to Mozilla 2.0 (or even forked, without the consent of the contributors). If you want to stay with Mozilla 1.1, all you need to do is to not mix Apache and Mozilla licensed code in the same source file. Your project ...


6

Eric Raymond wrote a thoughtful piece about this at one time. The important point I think is When you lose interest in a program, your last duty to it is to hand it off to a competent successor. Basically, will you offend them? It really depends on the them. What would be good to do is to contact the developer and ask what she or he would ...


6

If you only copied ideas from the original library and no actual source code, then your library is not a derived work as far as copyrights are concerned. Copyrights are about the actual source code, not about the ideas/concepts that are represented in that source code. To protect those ideas/concepts, you need to turn to other intellectual property laws, ...


5

You should be fine. Here's a copy of the (Apache v2 license](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html) And this is the relevant section: 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright ...


5

You should read and understand any license that you agree to. CC licenses, like CC-BY-SA-3.0, explicitly state: You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a ...


5

I have not done this in the past, but your quoted segment makes it very plain what is needed. Specifically, only the following line is relevant to you: "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License;" This means that you must include the license file itself, not just a link. As for your other question, the ...


5

No, the Apache license isn't a "copyleft" license. You must include the license in your stuff so that the end user knows that they are using something Apache licensed. In your read me or wherever you plan on putting your license I would include a section that says uses Apache (whatever you are using here) Licensed under Apache 2.0 (license text here). If ...


5

If you are releasing your software with source code under the MIT license you should have no trouble including the other packages with it as long as you comply with the various notice requirements in the licenses. If it is important, check with the copyright holders of the libraries to be sure. If you are thinking about a binary only release you will need ...


5

Section 4 of the Apache License 2.0 is quite clear on what you must do when you distribute the changed file: You must not remove the existing copyright claim (the one by 'the Best Company in the World') You must make it clear the the file has been changed. The easiest way is to simply add your copyright after the original ones: Modifications copyright (C) ...


5

I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. The title of questions (‘Can I change license?’) does not match its body (‘Is it possible to license my changes by Apache v2 license?’). Of course, you can not change the license. Even most permissive free software licenses, such as Expat and 2-clause BSD licenses¹, ...


5

There are well-established patterns for attributing the libraries you use. In general, you put this attribution in the same place where you'd put your copyright notice. In a desktop application: Often there is a menu item “Help > About”, which displays a small info window with the application name, version number, copyright, and developer contact. This ...


4

You must provide a copy of the Apache License Version 2.0 (APLv2), also. It says so in the quote: "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License". No attribution other than that is required. So, putting "this project uses Xyz library distributed under Apache 2.0" somewhere is not necessary. The source code (the ...


4

It looks like you are affected by '4. Redistribution' clause of that license, which you should read carefully, and ask a lawyer if anything is not clear to you (if you can afford one, and if you can find one who will understand what it's all about, for every country where you want to distribute or sell your project). I'm not a lawyer, I'll just tell you how ...


4

Let's clarify some terminology first. When the FSF says a license is compatible with the GPL they don't mean what many people interpret that to mean. Many interpret "compatible" to mean the two pieces of software can happily co-exist in the same application. That's close to what the FSF means, but the copyleft provision of the GPL takes things a little ...


4

As long as you have written the code, and you don't work for anyone else, insert "your name" - you have the copyright as long as you don't give it to someone else. When others contribute, you can still change it later and add their names, too (or let them add their names by themselves). Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.


4

It's actually a very simple license, worth reading with due respect. If you can ask the question in English, I'm very sure you can comprehend the license - just try once again, without distractions. In short, you can (section 3) IF you follow the rules (section 4 through 9). If you don't follow, then you are in violation. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and ...


4

but does this mean my WHOLE project will be distributed under the Apache License 2.0 or just does it just apply to that source file? No. I think you can distribute your project in any form you like. Even if it is not open source that is okay - as long as you are giving due credit to the author who's class you are using. I don't know if mac store ...



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