Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

27

The restrictions in copyleft licenses like the GPL apply to modified versions of your code as well as your original code. So they can't just tweak the whitespace or brace style and then delete your license statement. However, you can't patent/copyright/copyleft/whatever an "algorithm" in its most abstract sense. You can put a license on your favorite ...


12

If you want to prevent a patentable thing from being patented and then "closed off" from the greater community you could do a defensive disclosure. Cuis Smalltalk, for instance, did this with some new anti-aliasing techniques: http://www.defensivepublications.org/publications/prefiltering-antialiasing-for-general-vector-graphics ...


9

I see some valuable information in the other answers and the comments, but also some misinformation, so I try to give a summary and add some additional things. Will I have some advantage if I open source the algorithm under copyleft licence (GPL etc.)? By publishing the source code of an implementation of your algorithm under GPL (I assume that is what ...


5

You can't "copyleft" an algorithm. "Copyleft" relies upon copyright protection for its enforceability, but algorithms are not copyrightable, so you can't "copyleft" an algorithm. In other words, your question might be based on a faulty premise. Copyright can only be used to protect a specific implementation, not the idea of the algorithm. So, you could ...


5

The GPL is not capable of "infecting" software it talks to over a network, so no, you do not have to disclose your server-side code. In fact, this is closely related to why the Affero GPL exists: The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program ...


5

You designed your library to depend only on the LGPL version of LibRaw. That way you are following the license conditions of LibRaw. When the end-user links it against a version of that library which contains GPL code, that's their own business, not yours. You can not prevent your end-users from doing this. And doing that is not even illegal for them: The ...


5

The FSF answer this question themselves: Can the US Government release improvements to a GPL-covered program? Yes. If the improvements are written by US government employees in the course of their employment, then the improvements are in the public domain. However, the improved version, as a whole, is still covered by the GNU GPL. There is no ...


3

Copyleft doesn't have anything to do with copyright or patent protection. It doesn't provide any protection to you, the copyright holder, that you wouldn't otherwise already have. It has everything to do with distribution, however. Copyleft protects users of your code by requiring you and anyone else who uses their code to distribute the entire source ...


3

The simple answer is: "it depends on what the license you get says" If the commercial license says that you can relicense so that it may be used in an open source product, then thats what the license says. I tend to doubt that this would be the case because it would essentially mean that it would lose nearly all of its power of actually being able to ...


3

According to the FSF, you cannot: Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you are allowed to combine separate modules or ...


2

The intention of the GPL is to ensure the maximal possible freedom for the (end-)users of GPLed code. Therefore: you may freely use GPLed software, even in closed source applications. The GPL does not require that you open-source your code. when you re-distribute/convey GPLed software, you must use the GPL license so that your users enjoy the same freedom ...


2

IANAL, but as far as I understand you have nothing to worry about: Copyleft only transfers to Derivative Work - that is, a program that contains parts of the copyleft program. Dynamic linking is a legal gray area(RMS claims it transfers copyleft, others claims it doesn't, I don't know if it was ever discussed in court). I've never heard anyone claiming it ...


2

Can I take a GPL program and resilience my changes under the AGPL? No, you are not allowed to change the licence. GPL code has to contain the GPL, and it is not allowed to change the licence. Say I clone a GPL project, make some changes, can I only allow people to use my changes under the AGPL license? See above : you are not allowed to modify ...


1

This could be argued either way. Sencha, makers of ExtJS, claim that if you use the GPLv3 version of Extjs in the frontend, the combined work (both frontend and backend) are covered by the GPL: For example: let’s take a mortgage processing software program. Let’s say that the application has a front-end (that generates web pages linked to Ext JS ...


1

The question becomes really simple if you are releasing as free and open source and everything using your code is also free and open source: everything will be fine as long as your code is using a compatible license. If your code is proprietary or is used in proprietary software, it becomes a bit more complicated. The main question is whether or not you or ...



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