Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. If some of my code were used in Wolfram Alpha ... would they have to release all of their code for Wolfram Alpha under the GPL? No. While GNU GPL indeed is ‘hereditary’ license, that forces one to apply GPL to his program, that use GPL-licensed ...


4

"With permission" can mean anything. It can mean "Permission to license under GPLv2" or "Permission for me to distribute them together with my GPLv2 application, but not for anyone else". When the license file doesn't make clear what kind of permission the author has, it isn't clear which license these resources are under. You should contact the author. ...


4

Absent any agreement of copyright assignment, Alice and Bob individually hold copyright over each piece of their own code. If Alice decides to sell the work under the terms of the GPL, it's no different from a third party attempting to sell a GPL-covered work -- it's completely allowed. Both authors offered the code under the GPL, so anyone can use it and ...


3

If libX has hard dependencies on a GPL library, then it cannot be distributed under a permissive/non-copyleft license like zLib. Better check that the library in question has their licensing in order. Either way, if your code depends (transitively) on GPL, you have to abide by those terms. Selling is allowed, but the user must be provided source and ...


2

The GPL does not restrict you from selling software. It explicitly allows you to do so. Section 4 of the GPLv3 reads: You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey The recipient then receives the same rights, so they can also choose to give the software to another person for a price, for free, or keep it for themselves. The price ...


2

The license incompatibility you found does not apply here. That restriction is a company policy of the Apache Software Foundation, but it is not part of the Apache License. On the other hand, there is a license problem with jQuery.xmleditor. As they use code derived from a GPLv3 licensed library, the jQuery.xmleditor plugin must be distributed under the ...


1

The Apache 2.0 license is compatible with the GPL v3 (but not v2): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 You are getting confused by the requirement that all software of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) be licensed Apache 2.0, but that is a "company policy". That incompatibility you are thinking about is due to the policy mandate that ...


1

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. Certainly, you can distribute the GPL-licensed Faenza icons with some MIT-licensed code, since both of MIT licenses (yes, there are at least two of them) are GPL-compatible. The same way as you can mix MIT and GPL code in one project, you can mix ...


1

You received the application under the distribution terms of GPLv2. Those are the only terms that apply to you. If the party who gave it to you didn't have the right to distribute some of it, that's their problem, not yours. Your responsibility is to honor the GPL restrictions, plus any other restrictions laid upon you in the license you received. As ...


1

Yes, if you link your code with the Rcpp library and distribute the derivative work, your package will almost certainly be subject to the GPL. The answers to this related question apply to your situation. Sometimes, the author of a work will offer a choice between commercial and open-source licenses (with a fee often required for the commercial option), ...



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