Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

19

In general, the legalities in licensing that can occur as a result of the use of open-source software boil down to two factors: Commercial use, and Distribution. Distribution means "conferring" software to a third party outside the organization. Since you say you only use the software internally, legal mechanisms like "copyleft" (the term used for the ...


13

The GPL describes rules about the use of the source code, not rules about the use of products of the application itself. The most obvious example is the GNU compiler. The compiler is released under the GPL. It is perfectly fine to use that to compile programs that are not released under the GPL. What you are restricted from is modifying the GNU compiler ...


8

As a Linux derivate, it should be licensed under the GNU GPL, but it isn't. That means that by distributing it under a different license, the KCC is violating the copyright of thousands of Linux contributors. However, that does not mean that someone who obtained a copy of it can redistribute it under GPL, as that would also be a copyright violation, in this ...


7

Translations (both to a different natural language and to a different programming language) are considered to be Derived Works. When creating a derived work that is so radically different from the original as a translation to a different (not closely related) programming language results in, it is actually quite hard to understand how the requirements from ...


6

There are some things to be aware off: First, your company lawyers may get a fit if you use third party code without asking them. So you shouldn't use any third party code without telling your boss or manager and getting their consent. As you said, you are not a lawyer. Second, a nasty one: If you find code on the internet, and it has some license, you ...


6

What you describe appears to be perfectly legal. The GPL allows any licensee (anyone who bought it) to sub-license it to others for any price they want or even for free when they feel generous. Those other people are now also licensees who can also sell or gift the software to others. So when someone offers a GPL software for $100, and you want to pay less, ...


6

There are a number of things to take into consideration: In most jurisdictions, if you are hired to write code, or if you write code for your employer, then the copyright on the code you write is owned by your employer/the company that hired you. As long as code is not made available outside the company that owns the copyright, it is not considered to have ...


6

There is no ethical problem with doing this, as long as customers are aware of it before they make the decision to purchase the product. However; if someone purchased the product before it required internet access, and then the product changes without their consent (e.g. using some sort of "auto-update") then I think it is an ethical problem (a form of ...


5

There are several business models for Free Software (which I feel is a more interesting terminology thant Open Source), and you should also look into the FSF site and its what is free software page. Notice also that even proprietary software is often non-profitable thru licensing. It is rumored that the development costs of SAP software is not paid by the ...


5

Quite often, corporate misconduct is revealed by disgruntled employees or ex-employees. When no inside source is available, and the only proof you have is the compiled binary of the product, it might get harder to prove that a copyright violation has happened. But there are a few things you can try: One possible sign is identical behavior. When both ...


5

There are no standard (open-source) licenses that fit your needs. Your requirement that your customers can't redistribute the software rules out all open-source licenses. You can create your own license that allows the purchaser to make modifications for their own use but forbids redistribution. To create the license, you are well advised to consult a ...


4

No a piece of work created by a GPL piece of software is not generally a derived work. There are exeptions, where for example, the GPL app is a code generator which produces source code containing significant bits of the original app. But producing an image, or any other piece of creative work with a GPL tool is not itself GPL.


4

Author here. Trianglify images are yours to do whatever you want with. You could even trademark a trianglify image to use in a logo. It's just a tool, what you produce using the tool is content that you own.


4

Under normal circumstances, it can be assumed that contributions to an open-source project are made available under the same license as the project itself. In very rare cases, a contributor might explicitly state that the contribution is made under a different license than the one used for the rest of the project. In such cases the copyright situation ...


3

You assume that the recipient wants to give away your software. It's possible that your customer has a vested business interest in not sharing the software. For example, if you sell an open-source industry-specific application to a business, that business might want to keep that application out of the hands of competitors in the same industry. (Of course, ...


3

Modifying open source software. Sometimes people need open source software to do something it doesn't already do and no one is willing to do that for free. So a company might pay someone to do it for them. For instance, a company might want to release some hardware running linux. But their hardware requires new drivers. So they pay someone (or maybe ...


2

Sometimes it's a judgement call. The following are the kinds of questions that will be asked when you get taken to court: Does your software directly compete with git, or is it incidental to its use? In other words, is the elevator pitch of your software something like, "It syncs changes to files between different computers?" Does your software still ...


2

It is a grey area (BTW beware I am quite a GPL enthusiast so I am biased); I guess you mean GPLv3 (but perhaps git is GPLv2 and then details are different) GPLv3 is so called a "viral license" (I dislike that expression because it looks negative,but it is not), or (much better wording) a strong copyleft license. It has a FAQ which answers some of your ...


2

This depends a lot on context. If you want to use any open source software you are free to. If you want to use any open source software for the basis of internal company projects then you are also free to ( since the more contagious licences like the gpl require you to provide the source code upon request to all who the compiled code is distributed to, ...


2

When you sell something -- anything -- you are trading something of value (the product, services or experience) for something of value (money). When you sell open source software, what you are typically selling isn't the software, but rather the services and experience that you've bundled with the software. For example, you may have made an installer that ...


2

Exhibit A: BSD license text Exhibit B: MIT license text First off, you really ought to read both of those licenses. Really, go on now, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read both. What you should immediately notice is just how similar the two licenses are. Really, they are. Basically, they both state "retain the copyright notice" and "retain ...


2

A software license tells you two things: What you can do with the software What you cannot do with the software However, a software license does not offer any guarantees. Specifically: It doesn't prevent anyone from suing you, even if you follow the license in good faith, and It doesn't prevent said person from winning in court, if they do sue you. ...


1

The license is specified in the README.md for the project: The converted file is licensed under the same licenses as the Mozilla source file: MPL 1.1, GPL v2.0 or LGPL 2.1 As such, the certificates are not public domain, and are explicitly licensed for public distribution under multiple licenses. In other projects, the license of the certificate ...


1

It depends. You should ask a lawyer. Actually, you should ask n lawyers, one for each country you intend to distribute your software to.


1

The MIT license only requires that the copyright notice is kept. It does not require you to keep the same license. And this makes sense: The MIT license wants you to do with the code whatever you want, but if you build upon the source code, it will still contain parts that were written by the original author(s). These authors retain the copyright for the ...


1

New additions to an MIT-licensed library don't preclude the inclusion of any additional copyright holders. So yes, you should include the new copyright declarations. The MIT license is included in any derivative works. So if you use the library in your application, and your application has its own license, you still have to include the MIT license (and ...


1

This case is explained in the GNU GPL FAQ: Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make ...


1

Piwik is open-source software released under the GPLv3 license. This means that you have the right to create a service that is built upon the functionality of piwik. If you use any part of Piwik in your project, the GPL applies to you. The limitations on your project depend on the business model you are going for. If your customers will always connect to ...


1

The other answers have already shown you how to make money off software without making money directly off the sale, however, there is still one reason why someone would straight up buy your software: some people or organizations like to have someone to sue, and it is easier to sue someone you have given money to (and thus have a contract of sale with) than ...


1

This is a hotly disputed aspect of software licensing. One interpretation is that, if you are not -distributing- a library, you do not need a license, nor do you need to accept or comply with any terms attached to use of the library (with the caveat that you might still have to accept terms to do any meaningful testing of your program). By this ...



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