Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

16

Software can be dual licensed if all the copyright holders agree. Most companies that have a dual licensed product and accept contributions have some form of contributor license agreement that must be accepted before you can contribute code. In the case of ExtJS, it says: You hereby grant to Sencha and to recipients of software distributed by or on ...


12

LGPL allows you to link or embed binaries without opening your own source, so long as you provide the source code for the binaries and publish any changes you make to the libraries. You must also deploy your application in a way that allows someone to replace the LGPL'd library, if they so choose. In practice, this means that you must dynamically link to ...


10

Do consult a lawyer for this, anything you get from this site (such as the answer that follows) will not free you from any liability nor guaranteed that you will be safe from prosecution. This site is most definitively NOT a proper replacement for any sort of legal advice. Now to the matter at hand, from what I understand, LGPL will allow inclusion of a ...


7

So long as you keep using the version of the software which was released under the MIT licence, you don't need to do anything: nobody, not even the copyright holder can revoke the licence you received. Of course, if you want to update to the newer CC-licenced version of the software, you would have to comply with whatever terms that version of the software ...


7

Yes, undistributed improvements don't need to have source code released. This was an intentional decision when designing the GPL; you're allowed to modify the code for your own purposes without needing to tell anyone what you're doing, or to distribute anything related to it. The GPL was never intended to say "if you improve the code, you must release the ...


7

Dual licences Software licences are not exclusive, you can give the same code to everyone under terms of licence A, and to some people (who pay you) under the different terms of licence B. Of course, that refers to your code. If other people develop and distribute additions to your system under the GPL, then you can always reintroduce them back to your ...


6

The GPL requires all derivative works to be licensed under the GPL as well. If you fork a GPLed software and distribute your fork, then you are required to offer your software under the GPL. This implies that you have to make the source code available. From the GPL v3: 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. You may convey a work based on the ...


6

This is not an open source license. Open source implies a free license which allows customers to make copies of the product and give them to others without having to pay you. However, such license conditions are perfectly reasonable for a proprietary product. When you would like to monetize your software that way you should hire a lawyer specialized in ...


5

If the license on the obsolete version 1 of the software does not give you the right to make modifications and to distribute your modifications, then there are no legal possibilities to provide continued support from within the community. The very first update you, as a community, provide will be in breach of the copyright on the software and the copyright ...


5

An aggregate is a collection of programs that are not collectively bound by the GPL. In other words, they are not a collective work. A collective work is bound by the GPL because the individual programs or modules form a collective whole. An aggregate is not bound by the GPL because The individual programs, if they communicate with each other, do so at ...


5

1) Can someone sell a fork of an open-source software under GPL without distributing the source? Example: Can I modify a little bit GIMP, repackage it under another name, and sell it as a commercial product without giving source code (like Adobe Photoshop) ? Holy cow NO! That's exactly the sort of behavior that the FSF made the GPL to fight ...


4

The text of the LGPL is complex, as it attempts to define the term 'link', since the LGPL is intended to cover libraries. So it's a completely open legal question as to whether incorporating an LGPL executable (which is not a library) as part of a larger work is: the creation of a derivative work exempted from GPL provisions by the LGPL. the creation of a ...


4

In the vast majority of countries, you have absolutely no rights. Copyright automatically belongs to the author by default so until they explicitly grant you rights, you don't have any.


3

So let's take a look at first clause in the BSD 2-clause license template. Copyright (c) , All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of ...


3

There are no licenses with such restrictions in common use. Licenses with such a restriction also fall outside the definition of open source. Fears, such as yours of being held accountable for conclusions drawn from the results given by your application, are usually dealt with by adding a disclaimer to the software that you don't guarantee that the software ...


3

The University of Illinois/NCSA license is a permissive, MIT-style open source license. As the license does not impose any restrictions on redistribution or modification that are not also in the (L)GPL, the NCSA license is compatible with the (L)GPL license. This means that there are no legal restrictions on distributing an application that contains both ...


3

This situation is covered in the GNU GPL FAQ, in the section "I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?" in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they ...


3

The key part of CC-BY-SA of interest to you can be found in Section 2a5B of the legalease. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the ...


2

This depends on who contributed to the system X. Case 1: You did it all by yourself You are the sole copyright owner of system X. You have decided to distribute that code under a viral open source license. You may at any point stop offering the system under such a license, although you can't cancel existing *GPL licenses or prevent other people from ...


2

Section 3.2 of the MPL 2.0 says: If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no ...


2

And, I am NOT going to distribute any GPL application (neither its sources) packaged together with CSCS. Copyright controls who is allowed to distribute something, not who is allowed to use it. If you don't distribute the GPL application, you can't infringe copyright, even if you depend strongly on it. Your user could infringe the conditions on which ...


2

The easiest way to get around it is to document what you need the function to do, and then give that specification to your coworker and ask them to re-write it. Seventy lines isn't a ton to rewrite, but if you were to rewrite it right now you'd know how Apache did it and possibly (unintentionally) copy their code or way of doing it. If you think the Apache ...


2

If a licence file exists, it's rather natural to assume it applies to the folder (and its subfolders), so you can have a licence in each subproject folder and all is well. Other than that, you could have the license in each file and thus even change between licences on a per-file basis. Beyond that, I would point out that you could also have a repo for ...


1

Releasing patches may be ok so long as they are purely maintenance updates, and that you're not releasing enough code to enable piracy. If you have source or tools to produce those patches with that is. Some platforms allow you to place shims into the system which would mean you could make changes to the user experience without ever touching the original ...


1

As stated in the license you quoted, you must keep the entire copyright notice, license and disclaimer intact. It is not sufficient to replace it with a reference. What you are allowed to do (and really should do) is add your own copyright to the existing copyright notice.



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