Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

From the EPLv1.0 REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and b) its license agreement: i) effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties and conditions, ...


7

There is no such open source license. In fact, there cannot possibly be such an open source license, since your terms violate several of the fundamental principles of open source, and thus any license which includes your terms is by definition not an open source license. In particular, your proposed terms violate clauses 3 and 6 of the Open Source ...


6

If you want to remain free in which license to choose for your own parts of the application, you can use libraries with any license that doesn't try to extend its scope to the entire program, but is limited to the library in question. So, the licenses that you must avoid are strong copyleft licenses, such as GPL and AGPL. If you want to use a library with ...


5

It's because the modifications are legally considered a derivative work, because they build on and depend on the work already done. This protects the original authors against someone adding a popular new feature that builds on their work, but then making that feature closed source. If authors wish to allow closed-source extensions to their software, they ...


5

I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. The title of questions (‘Can I change license?’) does not match its body (‘Is it possible to license my changes by Apache v2 license?’). Of course, you can not change the license. Even most permissive free software licenses, such as Expat and 2-clause BSD licenses¹, ...


4

You can distribute software A as GPL, but only without the additional features provided by proprietary library B. If you bind new features in software A to proprietary library B, then you must also distribute B's source code under the GPL. Binding the two softwares in this fashion creates a derivative work. The only way you might get away with licensing A ...


4

Does your library depend on the GPL libraries for its proper functioning? If it does, then you have created a derived work, and your license must also be GPL. If your library does not depend on the GPL libraries for its proper functioning, and losing the GPL libraries does not substantially impair your library from working properly, then you should be able ...


4

Consider that the company likely owns the copyright (work for hire) on the programs being created, and is also the user. This means that the license is irrelevant: a license is an agreement the owner of the software's copyright and anyone who wishes to use the software. If the two parties are the same entity, using any license makes no sense. That being ...


4

If you are literally translating the C++ code that implements the algorithm, then you are creating a derived work of apt and you must license your code under the GPL as well. On the other hand, if you implement the algorithm based on a textual/mathematical description of the algorithm without looking at the C++ implementation, then your code is not a ...


3

You need to provide him with a license to use your code. The Apache license should suffice. It provide liberal redistribution provisions, while preserving the original copyrights of all contributors, and doesn't contain a "copyleft" provision. Copyleft means roughly that the entity using your code must open-source their code under the same license; ...


3

(...) using an incompatible license like the MIT license. In general, I like to work with this baseline: GPL + MIT => GPL MIT + GPL => GPL (anything else) + GPL => GPL GPL + (anything else) => GPL In other words, if you mix GPL with anything else, you get GPL'ed code. There are some exceptions, but not at the level of actually mixing code. Note that ...


3

Probably because the end users are using your files, not your diffs, and licenses are supposed to be distributed along with your software (whether in source or binary or some other form). You don't distribute your software as a series of annotated diffs, do you? There may also be a legal reason, but that's a question for a different website.


3

Copyright licenses specify if and under which conditions you can make modifications to something that is created by someone else and if and under what conditions you can distribute the original or modified versions. The default copyright 'license' is "all rights reserved", which means that only the original author is allowed to make changes and distribute ...


3

CC BY-NC prohibits commercial use of the library. This conflicts with the definition of open source and so, no, the aggregate software would not be open source. Additionally, the definition of 'non commercial' is not well defined. This is the realm of lawyers. Is a non-profit with advertisements (or a donation button) on the page backed by something with ...


2

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. If I really had to do what you're asking, I would release two separate versions, one licensed GPL with the GPL'd component, and one licensed BSD without the GPL'd component. I don't think it would work to have one distribution with both "versions" in it because GPL is triggered by distribution, so since you're ...


2

There's no such major license, as FOSS licenses' primary goal is to maintain the "four freedoms" (or a part thereof for permissive licenses). Any restrictions on possible future functionality (apart from the odious DRM that Stallman banned in GPLv3, asserting it has no place in the future1) are seen as highly undesirable and are gonna condemn a license as ...


2

If all you did was run the translation tool over the sources, you have no claim to copyright on the translated version because no creative work on your part went into it. As the original author will probably not be supporting the C# version, it is a good idea to mention that you are responsible for the C# version. You could do this like so: Copyright ...


2

Yes, at least in the US and in all EU member states, copyright exists by default and rights to use the work are automatically reserved either to its author or their employer (if the work is written as part of their obligations to the employer). In the specific case of examples in a text book, tutorial, or other similar document, you could argue (unless the ...


2

You violate the GPL when you do two things. Create a "derivative work" from GPL'd code. Fail to follow the requirements of the GPL for creating such works. You can in fact do ALL of what you noted, so long as you follow the GPL's rules. That's the point of copyleft. You can copy and paste all or part of a GPL'd program into your own, modify it to suit ...


2

I think you are confusing licensing and copyright. Each contributor to a shared project without copyright assignment only owns the copyright over their own contributions, in other words copyright over each diff they produce. A contributor would only own the copyright over a whole file if nobody else contributed to that file. As a result, most files have ...


2

The GPL requires that any time you distribute the software, you must either include the source code or make it available for download with clear instructions on how to do so (e.g. provide a URL to your public repository or download page). You are only obligated to provide the source code to whomever you are distributing binaries. For the vast majority of ...


2

The Creative Commons Attribution license is a "open" license. It gives you the right to use and modify the data in any way you see fit, as long as you give proper attribution to the source of the data. Migrating the data to a different database engine would be fine. For the other data sources, you need to check on a case-by-case basis if their license ...


2

Yes and no. If you change the license on Github, then anyone who grabs that copy of your software is bound to the new license. The caveat is that anyone who had previously grabbed a copy of your source code are bound to the old license. If you have an idea of which license or restrictions you want to place, it would be better to do it now. It's less of a ...


2

Assuming you are the copyright holder for all the code, then yes you can do this. But as I understand things, no other entity will be able to compliantly create a derived work and distribute it because of the incompatibility of the licenses for the code and the "resources". This problem doesn't apply to you since you're the owner of the code and hence ...


1

Creative works, like books, software, images, etc., are always protected by copyright, even if there is no explicit claim to copyright on them. The default copyright "license" is that only the original author has the right to distribute and/or modify the work. If something can be released into the public domain depends on the jurisdiction. Some ...


1

It's going to be awfully hard to enforce :) However, what you have written would seem to me to be a perfectly good thing to put into a license conditions file and/or something prominent where your s/w can be downloaded. In the end what it comes down to is: Do you want to be simple and clear (which you have done) and POSSIBLY have something slip through ...



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