Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

As far as I know, the GPL is for licensing code in source and binary formats, not the formats of data files manipulated by said code. An instructive example is GCC. GCC is licensed under the GPL, but the source code that goes into it and the binaries that come out of it are not affected by that license (its version of the GPL even has a special exception to ...


2

If a rogue employee takes your source code and distributes it, then it is the rogue employee and not you who does the distributing. The rogue employee has to provide source code or is guilty of a GPL violation. However, since he doesn't have the right to distribute the source code (because that source code is yours), he can't distribute it and is guilty of ...


5

In the first case, for a bona fide accident, you are in all likelihood fine. If it's served up by accident, no one has any authorization to download the file in the first place, and so therefore it likely wouldn't be considered a distribution. If someone has a beef with the company though, it may take going to court to decide that, as this issue hasn't been ...


1

First, it does not matter if you change B afterwards as long as you publish your modifications under GPL again. B could have been written (and published) that way by the original author, before you already started to create A. So your situation is probably one of the two scenarios described in the GPL FAQ under "writing a [GPL] plug-in for a non-free ...


0

You take GPL-licensed program B, modify it, and release the result under GPL. That's just what you should do. No matter what A does with B as long as A is in independent program. The tricky question is what happens if your proprietary program doesn't do anything useful unless there is also B running and you write and distribute a wrapper (say, W) which ...


10

A license doesn't restrict what you are allowed to do, a license gives you permission to do things that you would not be allowed to do without the license. If that code had no license, then you had no right to use it, and creating a derived work was copyright infringement. You are lucky that it is now licensed.


1

"Place Warranty" means that you can put your own warranty in the license, but you don't have to. Some licenses do not allow this, for what I hope are obvious reasons (commercial licenses typically have their own warranty terms that cannot be modified by the consumer).


7

If you take the source code from JasperReports and translate that literally to C++, then you are creating a derived work and you are bound by the license that the original work is released under. For a translation of a work under the LGPL license, this means that you must distribute your translation also under the LGPL (which means also providing your source ...


3

This is not a clear-cut issue. Consider two extreme ends of the spectrum: Your proprietary client software is an HTTP client and it renders HTML responses. It can work with any HTTP server. The HTTP server that you use for your service happens to use GPL components. You have a program that uses GPL-licensed components. You pick an arbitrary point in that ...


3

This is not going to be something that can easily be answered. Typically, I would recommend "staying clear" of the issue (don't publicly distribute the patch). You have (as far as I can tell) two real questions that need answering. First, are the little snippits of code in a diff in violation of copyright laws if publicly distributed. I would tend to lean ...


5

This is a very hard question, and only a specialised lawyer will be able to give you an answer. I will just address the technical aspect of your question. Technical solution of your problem The easiest technical solution to your problem is to use another patch format. The patch and diff utilities support several formats, and an especially interesting one ...


0

If the project was released under an open-source license, then that license gives you permission to make modifications to the code and to distribute those modifications. Most closed-source and proprietary licenses do not give you permission to make changes or to distribute (a changed version of) the software. If you don't have permission to make changes, ...


5

Two processes communicating over a network does not entail the creation of a derived work the way linkage of an executable with a library does. So the GPL code on the server does not apply to the client code. Under the GPL, you are required to distribute the modified source code when you distribute binaries. Since you're not distributing the server ...


2

Does the client software depend on the server software for its proper functioning? In other words, will the client software work without being connected to the server? If the answer to that is "yes," and the server merely provides an additional feature, and not core support, to your client software, then you're probably in the clear. If the server ...


4

The copyright string is not part of the license. If you read How to Use GNU Licenses for your own software, you will see that the copyright string is something that is added to each source file by the author. The process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a ...


0

We considered using these VMs at my workplace, and asked about using them. Our internal Windows administrators checked and told us that "You may not use the software for commercial purposes." does indeed mean that you are not allowed to use it at all if you are a company, not even for testing purposes. I do not know where they obtained the information, but ...


1

No, the LICENSE file needs to contain the entire GPL. The excerpt provided goes in every single source code file; while you might or might not technically need it, it's best by far to put in every single file a) a copyright notice and b) a statement that the program is under the GPL. That isn't GPL-specific, it just adds significant legal clarity (it makes ...


2

If I remove everything after END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, is it still the same license? No. The complete text of the actual GNU GPL license can be found here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt This is the "copy" that the "notice" refers to when it says: You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. ...


3

I was unable to find anything in the GPL FAQ that covers this, and the license itself does not say as far as I know. What I do know is this: The license must be verbatim, although the FSF do acknowledge that this "requirement" is not set in stone. There is no requirement anywhere that I can find stating that the LICENSE documentation can only contain one ...


3

Names and logos are actually covered by trademark law, not copyright law (in almost all cases). If you want to stop someone from passing a derivative off as your project, the solution is to enforce a trademark on the name and logo; trademark is all about preventing confusion between your product and other products, while copyright is about preventing someone ...


4

There are copyright holders: There is copyright on the works created by A, there is copyright on the additions by B, and there is copyright on any changes that C made. C must check whether he has permission to use the software on which A and B hold copyrights. A was licensed under the GPL. I am quite sure that the GPL gives you permission to use A's work ...


3

Technically, it is possible to extend a GPL library with code that is itself not covered by the GPL license. The snag is that when you distribute the derived work that you created, you must observe all the requirements that the GPL places on you. In your situation, this means that it is possible to have library A under the GPL and the new code in library B ...


23

First off, B is in violation of the GPL on A. But that's not exactly your concern and is irrelevant to the question here (who knows, maybe B got a LGPL license from A on their code so that it may be released under LGPL?). The question is "Can you build a GPL piece of software based on LGPL code?" The answer to this is simply "yes". The LGPL is less ...


-1

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html In short, there is no problem with inheritance as long as you do not change the library code itself, but even if you change it, you are required to release only the library modified code, not your application code.


4

Open source licenses don't forbid anyone from selling the software for a fee or for providing additional services for a fee. The main reason that open source software is usually provided for free is that if you ask a fee for the distribution, anyone is allowed to under-bid you and distribute the same software for less money (or even for free). The ...


3

It is possible, but you won't forbid someone to get the source code, perhaps adapt it, compile it, and distribute the resulting binary. If you use the LGPL license, the entity redistributing binaries should (AFAIK) publish (as LGPL) the modified source code. If you use MIT license, that entity could redistribute binaries without even publishing its ...


0

MonoDevlop is licensed by a mixture of LGPLv2 and X11/MIT code, therefore you can use it to develop any kind of software you want. Your examples of MonoDevlop and Qt target two completely different realms: Tools, such as MonoDevelop: While the license of a software tool such as an IDE doesn't usually affect the license of your work per se, if the license ...


1

The license of the IDE that was used to develop software generally does not have any impact on the licensing of the software that you wrote. The IDE is a tool, not a library. The IDE does not get distributed with your software in the end, unlike a library. However, if you wanted to distribute a modified version of MonoDevelop, you would need to adhere to ...


3

I would recommend you to use a copyleft license like the GPL. While the GPL does not forbid to sell the software, it requires to license it under GPL when sold, so when someone polishes your application and sells it, they can sell it exactly once, because their customer can then also sell it or give it away for free. When each of their customers can underbid ...



Top 50 recent answers are included