Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

21

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 ...


18

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 ...


14

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 ...


13

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 ...


8

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. ...


7

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, ...


7

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 ...


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

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 ...


5

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 ...


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

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

The Apache 2.0 licence is completely unlike GPL. In particular, it says You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: So provided you meet the conditions listed (which are generally not ...


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

In general, trademark protection is a separate issue from software distribution. Your trademarks are supposed to be already protected under a wide range of circumstances, regardless of any licenses you might use to distribute software or otherwise sell product. That said, trademark and copyright protection are often re-affirmed in software licenses. ...


4

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 ...


4

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You should hire an attorney who can advise you on the correct course of action. The following are, to my knowledge, the steps required to meet the requirements of both licenses. Your software must include a relatively prominent Copyright notice that says something to the effect: This software includes ...


4

The legal requirements are rather simple: You can clone the project as long as you keep to the terms of the original project's license and you don't use any trademarked names/logos/etc. without permission. If it it your intention to revive the project (and release your modifications as a follow-up version), then common courtesy dictates that you make an ...


3

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 ...


3

The license wants avoid this situation: Contributor-A creates a free project. Contributor-A convinces to Contributor-B, Contributor-C and Contributor-D of to collaborate with the project. All people is very happy right now. The world is wonderful. The contributors sell products based on the code of the project. The contributor make much money from the ...


3

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like a plain English reading of section 3 is: You can freely use the technology in this product, even if any of it is covered by patents owned by the contributors, without having to worry about patent issues. But if you try and sue anyone over patent issues related to this product, then you lose the rights of this ...


3

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 ...


3

The compatibility of the two licenses means that it is possible to release code under a dual license of both GPLv3 and Apache Licence 2.0. The thing with the GPL license is that it requires that if a single line of your application is licensed with it, then all of the application must be made available under the GPL license, even if that first line is ...


3

I think you're looking for Black Duck Protex. ...solution for managing open source compliance. Protex integrates with existing development tools to automatically scan, discover and identify software origins, an integral step in the development process and essential for enforcing license compliance and corporate policy requirements.


3

Most of these questions can only be answered with confidence by a lawyer. I am not one, but I will try to give some insights. Creating scaled versions of the icons is probably fine. Copyright is awarded for the expression of creativity and it doesn't take any creativity to scale an image. Other transformations, even scaling the width and height ...


3

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


3

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 ...


3

You say: If I made free software, I'd want to know that it will stay free, and that no one will just copy and sell. Or slightly modify and sell. Am I missing something? Yes. When I make free software, I want to know that people will find what I do useful. I don't care whether they make money out of it or not -- I know I'm not in a position to make ...



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