New answers tagged

7

If you received a copy of the software under the MIT license, you still have a license to do everything that the MIT license allows you to do - "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". It doesn't matter if the author changes the license on future versions or even removes existing versions - the license ...


0

Your library can #include the GPLed header but if you don't distribute a copy of that file with your library, you can compliantly distribute your source code under the LGPL. I'm not certain what the license situation would be for the compiled result. Since the LGPL allows upgrade to GPL perhaps that's what would need to happen there. But really, why ...


0

The most practical answer to this question is already give on the website - contact the copyright holder for permission: http://support.iconfinder.com/customer/en/portal/articles/919884-can-i-get-permission-from-iconfinder-to-use-a-specific-icon-


5

Disclaimer: the following is not legal advice. It's only my own personal opinion as IT professional. For legal advice, you should consult a lawyer or a qualified legal expert. 1.Where to put the notice The copyright notice shall according to US law: (...) be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the ...


1

The iOS App store guidelines and OS security sandbox do not allow spawning a separate process from an app, and in fact iOS reported to hunt and kill any attempts by an app to try to start additional processes. So even if using a separate process was a legal exception, it can't be done within a single iOS App store app.


0

If your program depends on an LGPL licensed module/library, then the basic requirement on you is that you must ensure that the users of your program or derived versions of it have the possibility to replace the LGPL licensed code with a different, compatible, version. One way to ensure this is by putting your code under the (L)GPL license, which ensures ...


2

AFAIK, the typical GPL variants apply only to your work "as a whole", and the MIT license is "compatible" with GPL. That means, if parts of your program are under MIT license, that is fine, as long as you do obey to the terms of the MIT license for that part (which is what you have in mind). And the only requirement that license states is ... "The above ...


1

Note that if you try to do this, you cannot make use of any GPL licensed code, since using such code requires you to license any derived work with the GPL. (You can of course use GPL licensed code and commit copyright infringement; if you then take anyone to court for using your code and they tell the judge that you are already committing copyright ...


0

I'd say you should either use GPL'd code, or not use GPL'd code, but don't try to play tricks. For one thing, if the owner of the GPL'd code finds out and complains to Apple believing that your code infringes their copyright, Apple will remove your app from the app store, and you can fight it out with the copyright holder.


3

Would your application function normally without the GPLv2 licensed code? If it can't, then you can't do it. You have to open your source. The FSF interprets your application falling on its head as "The GPLv2 code is an integral part of your application, and therefore your program and the GPLv2 code are collectively considered a 'derived work.'" If your ...


2

What you need to do depends on the license of the packages. The license of both products that you specifically mention have this clause: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. You can ...


0

The Android Open Source Project almost exactly mirrors the case I used in my example: the bulk of the source is under the Apache license, but they use a mechanism equivalent to Git submodules to deliver the GNU toolchain.


3

The license that you describe does not meet the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source. According to that definition, an open source license can not restrict someone who selling a software product. You won't find an existing open-source license that meets your criteria. However, if you hire a lawyer with the appropriate expertise, you can have ...


8

Reports of GPLv3 and AGPLv3 "virality" are greatly exaggerated Case 1: If you use a library X that comes under GPLv3 or AGPLv3, use it as a library (that is, keeping it as a separate entity without copying source code from the library into your own source code), and do not modify it, you do not have to make available anything. Case 2: If you use a ...


1

Since you are not distributing the software to anyone outside your organization, there is no requirement to make the source code for your changes available. The applies for GPLv1, GPLv2 and GPLv3. Also, the GPL places no restrictions on the purpose you use the software for. You can use it for commercial purposes ... provided that the way you use it does ...


2

Yes, GPLv2 code can be used in the manner you describe. That in fact is one of the motivations for the AGPL and GPLv3. The modified code must, of course, never be given to anyone outside the organization or the obligation to make the source code available will be incurred. There will probably be a negative reaction from the open-source community, as this ...


1

Read the GPL 2 license carefully, and be prepared to share the code along with all your changes with others. If you hand over the software to anybody outside your company without giving them the source code, then you have the obligation to provide the source code to anybody in the world who asks you for it.


1

Am I allowed to do this Yes. You can do whatever you want if it's legal in every other respect. under which conditions? You have to mention original authors (Wikipedia) and use the same license for your derived work, as described here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ but in my case I only have small ckunks of information taken ...


2

Disclaimer: I'm not a legal expert. The following shall not be considered as legal advice, but only my personal opinion. The clause seems quite common. In this article about an audit clause time bomb, you can find a critical analysis of a similar text from a known vendor. The main criticism form the legal expert does however relate only to additional ...


5

The wording in that contract is not unusual. In practice it means that they are asking you to track how many licences you own, who each license is assigned to, and to validate that people are not "sharing" licenses or downloading "cracked" versions off the internet. If the vendor wanted to do a license audit, it would likely involve first establishing from ...



Top 50 recent answers are included