Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

I think you may be fighting a losing battle; I'm not sure how "I want to make my source code available to others to do more or less what they want to" (the definition of open source) is compatible with "I want to keep others from undercutting me on price." With that said, there are a few strategies that may or may not help: Trademark the product name, ...


4

As your API depends on a library that is licensed with the GPL license, the answer to your first question is: No, you can not apply those restrictions to your API. The GPL is a copyleft open-source license. This means that any project that is based upon (or links to) GPL code must be made available under the same license (this is the copyleft nature of the ...


3

Just taking a quick look at those licenses (I don't remember hearing about FTL before today, but I may have), I don't see an issue. To meet the terms of the BSD 3-clause license, all you need to do is to include the copyright and disclaimer with the distribution, and I'm assuming that the distributors of SFML have clearly identified which libraries or ...


3

Can I make the source available only to those who bought the software? Yes. There are no (open-source) licenses that require you to provide the source code to just anybody. The most that is required is that you provide the source code to those people that have obtained a legitimate copy of the software itself. Can the customers give the source code ...


3

Is there […] a specific open source license that combats this type of behaviour? No, there is no such license. And there cannot be. The ability to sell the software is a crucial part of the Open Source Definition. Any license that prohibits selling is by definition not Open Source. If I perhaps create and bundle a trademark inside my program, would ...


3

Short answer: Yes. You do need to include the entire BSD "license comment" in any and all of your source distributions which contain Mr. Phantom Inker's code or modified versions thereof. This is one of the very few conditions the license imposes on you: // * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright // notice, this list of ...


3

CC-BY-NC is not a free or open source license, because it lacks one fundamental freedom: to use the work for any purpose (See the OSI Open Source Definition under “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” and the FSF Free Software Definition). The restriction to only use the work for non-commertial purposes is incompatible with free software. Also, the ...


3

My reading of the GPL is that it does not apply to this kind of scenario, where a UI (the web browser) accesses the program over a network. In fact, they state as much in the license: To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with ...


1

The Apache License Version 2.0 is an Open Source license. This means that you can take the material under the Apache license, make changes to it and re-distribute the changed version. The restrictions that you have are The original startbootstrap theme must remain under the Apache License Version 2.0 You are not allowed to remove or change the copyright ...



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