Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

13

Each author retains copyright to their code. If the project is under the GPL, contributing the code requires that the code is licensed under the GPL. If you want to do something else with the code like releasing it in a different license, you'd need the permission of the original author. For many projects, the project owner requires contributors to assign ...


11

Insert normal lawyeresqe disclaimer here. With that out of the way, your current employer would have a case against you. The GPL, or any copyright license for that matter, comes into play only when the work is redistributed. As your plugins have not yet been distributed, they are not really subject to the GPL, or any other license for that matter. Until ...


7

After making those modifications what's the correct thing to do next? Keep the licence info untouchable or try to update it including yourself with something like @author or @revision tags? I think you're confusing the software license and any prologue that might be part of the software. The license is where the owners of the copyright to the program ...


6

is this behaviour is legal according to GPLv2 License statements ? Yes do I have the right to change the name of the modified open source ? Yes Could you please provide justification from licenses with the answer. A name change is just a modification to the source code (etc) that embodies the name, and modification of "the work" is one of ...


5

Everybody holds the copyright to the code they write. Which means by default the original author is the only person who can grant a license for that code. As open source project typically have many authors it is not feasible to track down all authors and get them to agree every time a licensing change needs to be made. To avoid this problem some open source ...


5

For Jetbrains, the corporate license is a license that's not linked to an individual. The personal license is linked to a specific person. What that means inside a company is that if you buy a corporate license for 10 users, any 10 people can use the product at any given time. If however you buy 10 personal licenses, only the 10 specific people who are ...


4

When you create a plugin for a product that uses the GPL license, then the plugin itself and any libraries that the plugin uses do not need to use the GPL license themselves. However, you are not entirely free in your choice of license. As the GPL terms apply to the entire product and spread out to all plugins as well, your plugin and all the libraries it ...


4

Not being lawyers, we can't give legal advise here. What strikes me most in your license is the apparent contradiction that you start with Copyright 2014, [me] and also try to release the work into the public domain (which means that no copyright claims will be made). Furthermore, providing multiple compatible permissive licenses to choose from does not ...


3

Open source licenses (including the GPLv2) give you the right to modify a program written by someone else and distribute your modified version. There are few restrictions in the modifications that you can make. The most common restriction is that you can't remove or alter the copyright license. I am not aware of any open source licenses that forbid renaming ...


3

From my reading of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html and the commentary provided in How can I legally use LGPL javascript in a commercial web site? Yes. That the code is minified in no way absolves the person using it from noting that the license of the code is LGPL and linking to the license. Furthermore, if there are any changes based upon your ...


3

You don't have to license your code at all in order to publicise it – with no license stating otherwise, other people can't do anything with your code except reading it. There are some exceptions: Copyright law may grant limited use of your work. One important example is the fair use clause in U.S. copyright law, another common exemption would be citations ...


3

I am going to address not the legal issue but whether it is a good idea at all. In other words the impact on the company of you choosing to have a personal license. If the product is something that makes your work easier but does not affect the ability of others in your company to maintain the same code, a personal license may be a good idea provided your ...


2

You asked for a definition: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). If you either (a) merge an OSS work into yours or (b) modify an OSS work and then distribute the result with yours, you are caught by this definition. ...


2

First, the standard disclaimer: IANAL but a random stranger. I have been packaging an AGPL application(*) recently. It uses third party libraries distributed under jQuery, MIT, BSD (and some other) licenses. Here is how I have proceeded. My main intents when I designed this were: be compliant and be fair. While the first one should be sufficient, the ...


2

As a general rule, if you don't distribute someone else's code you are not obliged by any of its licence terms when you distribute your own. The liability comes at the point where the code is actually merged. Assume that A writes and distributes code for B to use, and that A's program uses code written by C but A does not distribute any of it. Then the ...


2

First of all, you have not included the legal text that is expected of a file that is released under the LGPL license. From a legal standpoint, that makes it unclear if the LGPL really applies to your library. I would recommend that you follow the guidelines from FSF on how to apply the (L)GPL to your code. With that out of the way, it is also a legal gray ...


2

I am not a lawyer, but this is how these licenses are usually interpreted in my experience: The MIT license is a so-called permissive license. It explicitely allows merging and sublicensing. That means you can use MIT-licensed code and relicense it under a different license. This allows you to use the code in any project regardless of the license. The ...


2

Once GPL, Always GPL. You can't distribute under the BSD if one of the libraries on which your application depends is licensed under GPL, nor can you close your source code. Dual licensing using GPL and a commercial license is a common arrangement among vendors. It basically states that, if you want to use their library for a "true" open-source ...


1

I think by saying "Restrictive", they really ment that the license itself did not allow you to redistribute it as closed source only. I see it common for business people to prefer Apache, MIT or BSD licensed code since they allow you to build your own products on top without the "restriction" of having to make your code available.


1

That ® indicates its a registered trademark. A search on google for 'bluetooth trademark' brings back Trademarks | Bluetooth Technology Website which reads in part: The Bluetooth word mark, figure mark, combination mark, and Bluetooth Smart and Bluetooth Smart Ready marks are all trademarks that are owned by the Bluetooth SIG and licensed out for use to ...


1

From reading the Wikipedia page on the MPL, it seems to me that you can "link from code with a different license". The license is even marked as such in the summary box. If you read the actual license, in its 2.0 version, section "Distribution of a Larger Work", you can read that you have to keep the library in question under MPL, regardless if you ...


1

You need to follow the terms of the license(s).1 1Honestly, that's it. For the licenses you cite (BSD, MIT) there is nothing within the license terms that say you must use the entire module. In fact, both of those licenses give you explicit permission to do what you're suggesting. MIT including without limitation the rights to use, copy, ...


1

From a copyright standpoint, a program that is statically linked to a library is a derived work of that library. The reasoning to reach that conclusion is as follows: The (binary) code of the library is physically contained in the program when the library is statically linked. This makes the (binary) program a derived work of the (binary) library. The ...



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