Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

23

First off, B is in violation of the GPL on A. But that's not exactly your concern and is irrelevant to the question here (who knows, maybe B got a LGPL license from A on their code so that it may be released under LGPL?). The question is "Can you build a GPL piece of software based on LGPL code?" The answer to this is simply "yes". The LGPL is less ...


7

The short answer In order to license something to others, you have to hold the rights to it. So your ability to license your code covered by the patent may depend on what you can work out with the patent holder. The long answer There are a number of ways this can go. You can get a release from the patent holder. You can release your code and hope the ...


5

In the first case, for a bona fide accident, you are in all likelihood fine. If it's served up by accident, no one has any authorization to download the file in the first place, and so therefore it likely wouldn't be considered a distribution. If someone has a beef with the company though, it may take going to court to decide that, as this issue hasn't been ...


5

Two processes communicating over a network does not entail the creation of a derived work the way linkage of an executable with a library does. So the GPL code on the server does not apply to the client code. Under the GPL, you are required to distribute the modified source code when you distribute binaries. Since you're not distributing the server ...


4

There are copyright holders: There is copyright on the works created by A, there is copyright on the additions by B, and there is copyright on any changes that C made. C must check whether he has permission to use the software on which A and B hold copyrights. A was licensed under the GPL. I am quite sure that the GPL gives you permission to use A's work ...


4

The copyright string is not part of the license. If you read How to Use GNU Licenses for your own software, you will see that the copyright string is something that is added to each source file by the author. The process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a ...


3

This is not a clear-cut issue. Consider two extreme ends of the spectrum: Your proprietary client software is an HTTP client and it renders HTML responses. It can work with any HTTP server. The HTTP server that you use for your service happens to use GPL components. You have a program that uses GPL-licensed components. You pick an arbitrary point in that ...


3

Names and logos are actually covered by trademark law, not copyright law (in almost all cases). If you want to stop someone from passing a derivative off as your project, the solution is to enforce a trademark on the name and logo; trademark is all about preventing confusion between your product and other products, while copyright is about preventing someone ...


3

The GPL v2 has this to say: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the ...


3

Technically, it is possible to extend a GPL library with code that is itself not covered by the GPL license. The snag is that when you distribute the derived work that you created, you must observe all the requirements that the GPL places on you. In your situation, this means that it is possible to have library A under the GPL and the new code in library B ...


3

I was unable to find anything in the GPL FAQ that covers this, and the license itself does not say as far as I know. What I do know is this: The license must be verbatim, although the FSF do acknowledge that this "requirement" is not set in stone. There is no requirement anywhere that I can find stating that the LICENSE documentation can only contain one ...


2

Code doesn't infringe on patents. Code running on a computer can infringe on patents. There was a major (billion dollar) case where Microsoft wa accused of patent infringement, and it turned out that an infringing device was created at the moment when the software was installed on a computer, and not earlier. For example not when a million CDs or DVDs with ...


2

As far as I know, the GPL is for licensing code in source and binary formats, not the formats of data files manipulated by said code. An instructive example is GCC. GCC is licensed under the GPL, but the source code that goes into it and the binaries that come out of it are not affected by that license (its version of the GPL even has a special exception to ...


2

If a rogue employee takes your source code and distributes it, then it is the rogue employee and not you who does the distributing. The rogue employee has to provide source code or is guilty of a GPL violation. However, since he doesn't have the right to distribute the source code (because that source code is yours), he can't distribute it and is guilty of ...


2

If I remove everything after END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, is it still the same license? No. The complete text of the actual GNU GPL license can be found here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt This is the "copy" that the "notice" refers to when it says: You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. ...


2

Does the client software depend on the server software for its proper functioning? In other words, will the client software work without being connected to the server? If the answer to that is "yes," and the server merely provides an additional feature, and not core support, to your client software, then you're probably in the clear. If the server ...


1

First, it does not matter if you change B afterwards as long as you publish your modifications under GPL again. B could have been written (and published) that way by the original author, before you already started to create A. So your situation is probably one of the two scenarios described in the GPL FAQ under "writing a [GPL] plug-in for a non-free ...


1

No, the LICENSE file needs to contain the entire GPL. The excerpt provided goes in every single source code file; while you might or might not technically need it, it's best by far to put in every single file a) a copyright notice and b) a statement that the program is under the GPL. That isn't GPL-specific, it just adds significant legal clarity (it makes ...


1

From A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance (emphasis mine): The most important component to maintaining GPL compliance is inclusion of the complete and corresponding source code in any distributions that you make of GPL’d software. That means you include the source code for any libraries that you use. They go on to say that: Knowing at all times ...


1

I believe that R packages that depend on Rcpp are not required to use GPL but rather to use a GPL-compatible license. Reading the Rcpp-FAQ Section 1.5 clearly states that: you are free to license your work under whichever terms you find suitable (provided they are GPL-compatible, see the FSF site for details). That would mean that if one chooses to ...



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