Hot answers tagged

29

There exist software projects that use a license like this. However, these would not be considered free licenses by the OSI definition. More importantly, the enforceability of these licenses has been strongly questioned every time I've seen them mentioned, and they have never, to the best of my knowledge, been tested in court. Using such a license is ...


16

When you look at the current market, there are already licenses that have stipulations about what the software might be used for. Apple has a stipulation in their iTunes license which says you're not allowed to use it to develop nuclear weapons. the game Far Cry 2 has a stipulation in the license that you're not allowed to use it contrary to morality or ...


13

You can write any license you like, and sue anyone who uses your code contrary to the terms of the license for copyright infringement. Your terms "not to be used by industry X" makes the license incompatible with the GPL license, for example. I cannot include your software in GPL code that I want to distribute (or that may be distributed accidentally, ...


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 ...


11

The license means nothing at all, and gives you no rights to use the software or copy the code. Given the way copyright law works in most countries (author has copyright by default, and "you can't do anything with this" is the default consequence of copyright), this means you're technically not allowed to copy the code (including cloning the repository). ...


9

This question comes up fairly regularly in the free software community and this is understandable. People writing free software (often in their spare time) and donating it to the public normally do this because they want to make a difference for the better, not for the worse. So trying to ensure that your craft is not used in a way that you consider ...


9

If you're concerned about the ethics of industry X, rather than creating a license that discriminates against industry X, you could approach it differently; you could go the dual license approach, and create a free and commercial version. Then make donations to some anti industry X organization - either in the form of a full commercial version or some cut of ...


8

If you received a copy of the software under the MIT license, you still have a license to do everything that the MIT license allows you to do - "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". It doesn't matter if the author changes the license on future versions or even removes existing versions - the license ...


7

The modified BSD license (also called BSD 3-Clause License) contains the exact same sentence: (3)The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. The Free Software Foundation lists the modified BSD license as GPL compatible.


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 ...


5

It seems to me that you're actually asking a number of questions so I've tried to answer them individually. I'm phrasing them as quoted question, although I've made them up in an attempt to rephrase what I think you've meant to ask. Should I use the MIT license for all files in my project? Given your description of your goals what you want people to be ...


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, ...


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 ...


3

Yes, you can combine code that is licensed under MPL 2.0 into a project that contains source code from one or more other licenses, including the MIT License. However, the individual source files licensed under the MPL will need to remain licensed under the MPL, including any modifications that you make to the MPL-licensed files. If you modify any MPL files, ...


3

There are some licenses that specifically prohibit military usage. http://mindprod.com/contact/nonmil.html "Open-source" licenses that explicitly prohibit military applications The problem with those kinds of things, is they become incompatible with other licenses such as the GPL. So on the surface they might seam 'reasonable' but they can ...


2

You don't need to buy the complete copyright. You just need to ask the author to license it to you under different conditions which do not require an attribution. But keep in mind that in order to do that, the author needs to actually own the complete copyright. That means when they used any code from 3rd parties, these parties must also agree to it (when ...


2

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


1

First, if you are distributing something (source or object/binary code) under the Apache License 2.0, you must distribute the license to recipients. If you do not give them the license, the recipients of your software do not know what their rights are with regards to usage, modification, or redistribution (among other things). The requirement to provide a ...


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.



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