Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

82

First, the answer is no (for a translation), you cannot legally relicense it or do anything outside of the original license legalities. You may very well have done 10 times the work of the original author, but it doesn't matter, it is viral. Not just because it is GPL, but because it isn't clean design or rewrite. I struggled briefly with this in 1992 when ...


29

This scenario is covered in the GPL FAQ: What does the GPL say about translating some code to a different programming language? Under copyright law, translation of a work is considered a kind of modification. Therefore, what the GPL says about modified versions applies also to translated versions.


8

It is doubtful, even if you rewrote the entire library from scratch, that it would pass legal scrutiny. The code would be considered "tainted" because you have seen the code in the GPL licensed library. The standard approach to this problem is called "clean room implementation". You write a requirements document and have someone else implement it (who ...


6

Observation: The GPL is only relevant if you release your work. Have you released it yet? Observation: This is not a legal-counsel website, so throw out all that legal FUD, and apply common sense. Opinion: The GPL, or any license, does not copyright ideas, it claims the sourcecode, not matter how small its part. So, if, and only if your "derivative" work ...


5

You own the copyright for any code you write. What the GPL mandates is: any code you contribute or release alongside GPL code, you must also release under a similar license. However, the copyright is still yours. So, if you release your software part-way through the re-write (so there's a mixture of your code and old code), then you have to release that ...


4

GPLv1 §7 states: …Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not ...


4

The GPLv2 only requires you to provide source code (and unencumbered redistribution rights) to those whom you give the software. If the software is only on your computer, you don't need to distribute code, because you're not distributing binaries. (As an aside, the Affero GPL (AGPL) has more strict requirements than the plain GPL: with AGPL-licensed ...


4

With internal libraries, you don't need to distribute them at all. The end user will have their own copy in their JRE. You only distribute code you own so you doesn't have any constraints. If you distribute code using GPL libraries, your code would need to be compatible with the GPL license which includes making all the code of the combined work available. ...


3

Yes. The other answers use far too much text explaining opinions on whether you should or not, but those opinions are not that relevant to the question. The fact is that you will have a new work once you replaced the last parts, which admittedly was constructed by looking at a GPL'ed work. That's not a major concern in copyright law (patents would be ...


3

Since you're making a derivative work of GPL-licensed software, your combined work would need to be licensed under the GPL as a whole. However, if you don't want to distribute your work, you are in no way compelled to shared your changes. The GPL FAQ has this to say on keeping your modifications private: Does the GPL require that source code of modified ...


2

With software licensed under BSD, you have freedom to add your own license, as long as you keep all the original copyright notices. This has been done extensively, both from BSD->GPL-family and from BSD->proprietary. Etiquette is always fuzzy, but I'd say: you make sure your repo contains a URL to what you forked from (i.e. more than just the legal ...


1

Yes, you must make your code open source as well. The GPLv2 is a so-called viral open source license. The viral part means that the license not only dictates terms for the code covered by it, but it also dictates terms for all the (other) code in an application. In the case of GPLv2, those terms are that all code for the application must be available to ...


1

There isn't a nice clean, rigorous definition of Freeware and/or Shareware. Freeware means that the software is at least distributed free of charge, but there may be restrictions on re-distribution, availability of the sources (as in closed source) and it might omit some features that are available in a paid version. Shareware is even less well-defined ...


1

Given you can "link" to the source code: If you are releasing your program under the GNU AGPL, and it can interact with users over a network, the program should offer its source to those users in some way. For example, if your program is a web application, its interface could display a “Source” link that leads users to an archive of the code. The ...


1

IANAL. I only consider the LGPLv3 because there are huge wording differences. Per section 4e, it is the responsibility of whoever "conveys" the "Combined Work" to also provide "Installation Information". If you are the "conveyer", you can e.g. host the package on your own servers or whatever's convenient for you and use that in your "Installation ...


1

If a jar file (or other compiled binary) is built from sources that, in part, are licensed with the GPL license, then the jar file must be distributed under the terms of that license. If there is a project that contains GPL source code, but distributes its binaries under a different license, then that project is in violation of the GPL license. If possible ...



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