Hot answers tagged

9

There is a key difference between an issue tracker and the repository itself: The issue tracker isn't distributed with the repository When one downloads the library or does a git clone https://github.com/jsmith/acme, the license that the library and code is distributed under needs to be there. Consider the situation where someone had their code on Google ...


6

Yes, you can release the portions that you own (in this case, the library before modifications were made by other contributors) under one or more other licenses. Those other licenses could be anything that you want, from other open source licenses to specific licenses to other people or organizations. If you are producing a library that is meant to be ...


4

If it were a GPL app, you wouldn't be able to do this, but LGPL has an important difference: the viral licensing property doesn't affect your project's code if you dynamically link to it. So as long as all the QT code is in its own DLLs, rather than compiled directly into your project, you'll be fine.


4

Legal Disclaimer. I'm not an attorney. The following should not be construed as legal advice. They are all following the "rule" that the year in the copyright notice should be the year on which the file was last modified. A single date on the notice establishes how far back the claim is made (also), so you shouldn't substitute: Copyright (C) 2015 ...


4

No, you can not leave out the year in a copyright notice. The format of a copyright notice is fairly rigidly specified and if you deviate from that, the notice might not be accepted as a valid copyright notice. From UK Copyright Service fact sheet: What does a notice consist of? "Copyright" Some countries will not accept the symbol alone, ...


3

You may incorporate any code that has a compatible license to it. That said, unless the new code is specifically licensed under a compatible license if you are to pull the changes into your codebase, you are opening yourself up to the possibility of some difficulties. In particular, unless the code specifically states that the new contributions are under a ...


2

IANAL but I did find an interesting piece by an IP lawyer in the US, essentially declaring that the 'public domain is not a license': Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump personal property on a public highway, there is nothing that permits the dumping of copyrighted works into the public domain, except as happens in due ...


2

Yes, as @ThomasOwens said, you can use the portions that you own (that you wrote) in a closed-source, non-gpl app. I think what clarifies this, but hasn't been mentioned, is the distinction between license and copyright. You, the author of the code, own its copyright despite licensing the code under gpl. In fact, you should immediately, if not sooner, go to ...


2

It probably depends on how you intend to distribute your software but I expect that it won't be very useful, to say the least. Normally, free software is distributed as source code archives. (Other projects – or you yourself – might pick those archives up and create “installable” distribution files for their respective package manager from them.) If you ...


2

You don't have to distribute the source code at all until someone asks for it. But if you choose not to distribute it along with the executable, you do have to provide a "written offer" for the source code, which I assume would have to include instructions on how to contact you and ask for it. From the GPL v2 preamble: You must make sure that they, too, ...


1

If there is BSD licensed source code and someone forks it adding additional patches, then this new source code in the new repo should include the exact BSD license file from the original repo and the new patches should be licensed under a new license (or the even the same license). Thus, the fork should have one or two licenses in the repository. It isn't ...


1

The CC-BY 4.0 license is a very permissive license. The only requirement on you is that you give proper attribution where you got the icons from. The Creative Commons licenses are designed to be used on artwork, literary works and the like. These licenses lack some considerations that are specific to software (such as the distinction between source code and ...


1

The boilerplate notice for the Apache License is: Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable ...


1

I have done some searching into the subject and found this flow-chart to start with: http://creativecommons.org.au/content/licensing-flowchart.pdf Following the flow-chart, You have to consider what public-domain means in CC0: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ Essentially, once some work is CC0, no attribution is required. You can claim ...


1

First, you need the permission of the employer. Second, you and your employer need to check the license of the software in question. As an example, if you buy software from the App Store, the license allows you to use it in different ways; if you use it commercially then you may install it on any number of computers in the company that are exclusively used ...



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