Hot answers tagged

11

If you are putting source code available to the public, then yes, you do need to be aware of the licenses that your third-party libraries are released under. Even if you don't put them into your GitHub repository, the licenses of those libraries may force you to license your project under certain licenses simply because you are using the other third-party ...


5

The GPL license specifically forbids additional clauses that restrict your rights, such as requiring permission before making your changes public. Section 7 of the GPL states: [...] All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, ...


5

The GNU GPL FAQ has some related questions: Can I link a GPL program with a proprietary system library? Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. I have no permission to use that software except what the GPL gives me. Can I do this? What legal issues come up if I use ...


4

If you are merely distributing the executable output of the Fortran compiler, and not the compiler itself, then you're not distributing the compiler, and therefore not triggering the GPL's copyleft provision. Under those conditions, you are not bound by the GPL. This is generally true of all compilers, unless your program requires the compiler's services ...


4

There are two separate copyrights in play when you contribute to an open-source project. There's the copyright on your individual contribution, and then there's a copyright on the entire collective work of the piece of software. Additionally, there's the general issue of whether a copyright notice is required to satisfy the terms of the law or the terms of ...


4

License and copyright are two very different things. GPL, in general, makes sure that any derivative works are still GPL. If you add new code to code that is GPL, that will still be GPL, but you have the copyright to the new code, and can put that into a copyright notice in your files (and you should do that). That will not do much for you, except that ...


3

We cannot possibly answer this. The crucial question is "Is your code a derived work of their code?" Since you started out with their code, it might very well be, even if no line remained unchanged. Basically, you did the exact opposite of a clean-room implementation. But on the other hand, a clean-room implementation is generally considered a sufficient ...


2

If the contributors of changes agree to a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), then the project owner holds all of the copyright. In essence, contributors can be asked to give up their rights to own the contributions. They may continue to receive credit for their contributions, but depending on the wording of the agreement, may cause them to assign copyright ...


2

If the modified Linux kernel is made available in binary form, the terms of GPL v2 require one of two things for commercial distribution - (1) the source code is delivered with the binary form, (2) a written offer to provide the source code for a charge no more than physical distribution (e.g. the cost of the media plus delivery) that is valid for at least ...


2

FSF writes that "Before we had the GNU C compiler, every C program (free or not) depended on a nonfree C compiler" (here), so likely using such compilers seem acceptable if the compiler does not bundle own libraries and does not claim the ownership of any kind on the compiled binary. However the same source points out that this is definitely not a good ...


1

The requirement for approval prior to publication of modifications render this licence non-free. See for example, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which requires licences to "allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." As it wouldn't be possible to ...


1

Though Robert gave you a very good answer, IMHO he missed one point: if you do not want to open the source of your program, you simply must avoid to distribute the Fortran compiler together with your program, not in one package, and not in two. But if your program starts at the end user's machine, tests for the presence of the G77 compiler, and if it is not ...


1

You mention that your code uses other libraries that are covered by the Apache and the GPL license, among others. Between Apache and GPL, GPL is the more restrictive. The general rule of thumb is, if your code uses GPL-licensed libraries, you should make your code also GPL licensed. There are ways to avoid this, but you can only share your code and you ...


1

See Jacobsen v Katzer et al., No. 2009-1221 : Ruling on summary judgment motions : Open source licenses are legally enforceable as copyright(s) licenses. Here the artistic license [sic] was tested in California, while the case was dismissed upon settlement settlement terms weighed strongly in favor of the license holder.


1

First of all you need to worry about legalities only if you wish to distribute your code. If it is for personal use or for an internal app for your organization you can go ahead and make any changes and integration you wish. And even if you want to distribute your code, what you need to do is fine by GPLv2. To quote from the license ...



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