Hot answers tagged

6

There is something called Copyright Law which already protects you from this. In general, if people are willing to break the law, they will probably also be willing to break whatever mechanism you put in place to prevent them from breaking the law. If you want someone to be able to run your program, you have to give them the program. There is no way around ...


6

Nearly all of the reasonably well known open-source licenses contain a disclaimer of liability for the result of anything that's done with the software. For example, the Boost license includes: IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ...


5

You seem to be confusing copyright with licensing; they are not at all the same thing. Does the license.txt in the root by itself actually enforce the license on to the code? Yes. There are however names in the credits section in the readme.txt, does that entitle copyright to the people mentioned? It doesn't matter. You don't have, nor do you ...


5

The GPL licence does not requires you to publish the modifications. It only requires that if you provide the software to someone, you should provide him the source code and the right to distribute it. I suppose that you will use the code internally only (which applies even if you have external user, you don't distribute them the software, so you don't have ...


3

After doing some legwork, downloading the last package that was available for the library the only licensing information I found was in the PKG-INFO file: License: PSF or ZPL Which makes me believe you can choose either. After 10 years of neglect, efforts to contact the author may not go well, but it's worth attempting any obvious action you can. ...


3

The GPL license is written in such a way that you are not allowed to use GPL-licensed code in a product unless the users of the product have the same rights that are granted by applying the GPL license. This is even the case if only a small portion of the complete product is actually licensed under the GPL. Due to this "infectious" nature of the GPL, if you ...


3

The purpose of a copyright notice is not to establish who owns the copyright, but that anyone copying the work knew who owned it. i.e. if you do what you propose you could be taken to court for copyright infringement, where the owner of the copyright would be established by other means than just looking at the notice (usually by some means of establishing ...


3

If you are an intern, that question is not one that you should even try to answer. Your boss should be made aware that you want to use this GPL licensed software, and he needs to agree with it. If he agrees, you are fine. If he doesn't agree, don't use the GPL licensed software. If using the software forces your boss to do something that he doesn't want to ...


2

Your scheme seems quite complete. Nevertheless I see several flaws: The fact to add the last use date in the license file forces you to alter the file at each execution: This requires the file to be in a shared place with R/W access for all the users. If on Windows, make sure that it doesn't require admin privileges. This immediately raises the ...


2

No. The key word here is "nonexclusive" license. It means that you're granting them the right to distribute your code, (which is the entire point of putting it up on a package manager,) without setting up any sort of exclusive deal or transfer of rights with them. And as the license is to distribute your code, rather than to use it, it doesn't conflict ...


2

I read quite a few forum topics and mailing list (link), the general answer was that if you are using the Android SDK, and you do not have an MP3 encoder/decoder in your application, then you don't need a license for your app. The MP3 license for playing is already provided by the device manufacturer. Also, basically everywhere else than the USA, MP3 ...


1

It depends on whether or not you're creating a derived work and triggering the copyleft provision. In general, for your program to not trigger copyleft, it must either be a separate work, or not be distributed. To qualify as a separate work, it must: Communicate with the GPL'd software at arms length, and Not be dependent on the GPL'd software for all or ...


1

The apache license grants you in its article 2 the right of creating your own app based on the licensed code, and if you're selling it, even without financial compensation of the original authors: (...) each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, ...


1

If you run the code on your own servers without distributing it, you don't have to release your source code. If you distribute your code which links to the GPL code, then you must release your source code. If you distribute any modified GPL code, you have to release the modifications, even if your code does not link to it. Technically I think this means ...


1

There is a difference between license and preamble. In some of my projects I am using the GNU General Public License, Version 3.0. The GNU GPL makes it necessary to have a preamble on every source code file: The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and may not be omitted. Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#...


1

The MIT license allows you to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software as long as the license text (copyright notice and disclaimer) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Where does this license text have to appear? This text should appear where the software ...



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