Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

You could insert your own copyright line above the original author's in LICENSE.txt and in each file that you have modified. Copyright (c) 2015 Yeo Copyright (c) 2014 Konstantin Tarkus (@koistya), KriaSoft LLC This preserves the attribution and license. It's a little more complicated, but possible, if you want to change the licensing terms. You could ...


2

Either of your options is a valid way of complying with the license, but from a practical standpoint the second is preferable because it allows developers to work more easily with your modified code. As to including the license string in the binary, I'm not convinced I see the point - who's going to be looking for it there?


2

Apache has a pretty good FAQ regarding their license. The relevant points: No, you do not have to provide the source code. Not quite. That statement almost covers the "proper attribution" requirement (but see #3), however you also are required to include a copy of the ASLv2 itself. Bizarrely, I can't find anything on the Apache website to clarify this ...


3

The MIT license allows relicensing of the material and does not require that it be under the MIT license. Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject ...


1

It's not a good idea. You would be fundamentally changing the license. I would guess that the original license text was written or reviewed by lawyers so that it would be acceptable to use and perhaps even stand up if legally challenged. Licenses work by copyright. You own the copyright to the work, but you are granting other people permission to use the ...


3

The Apache website's license FAQ has a very good non-laywer summary of what the license actually means. The part that's relevant to your question is this: It forbids you to: redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper attribution; use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or ...


1

If you create you program so that it loads the image at run-time (it is not linked): the user of the program must be able to change the image (customisation), if not then it is linked. Then the program should not be affected, it would be like an image viewer, it is not affected by the images that it views. I am not a lawyer. Please read the licence, and ...


3

The basic question is: does your code, or the creation of it, in any way rely on that particular image. If you somehow derived your code from the image, then your code would be a derived work and you would have to publish your code under the CC-BY-SA license. However, and this is more usual, if the image is just something that gets displayed in the context ...


5

I wouldn't "pollute" your OSS repo with some proprietary files, its a bit like uploading your OSS code with an Amazon API key or config file with your system's passwords in them. So you have to find some way to manage the distinction, probably the easiest is to create a new, private, repo for the images or create an archive of them and copy these to the ...


-2

(This answer was not intended for this question, but for a more specific one about git, and covers its specific case in greater detail than this question would practically allow. See comment 599873 for more info. It'll stay here in this form at least until the matter is resolved.) Git is covered by GPLv2. Generally, if you have any questions on FSF's ...


2

The answer by Andriano Repetti is perhaps correct but you should ask a lawyer (and I am not a lawyer neither), or perhaps the FSF or the copyright owners of the gitsoftware. Be aware that some people think (and I believe that) if you adapt some GPL software (even if you publish your adapted source code under GPL!) to communicate with your own proprietary ...


3

Short answer: you're not forced to release your software under GPL; you can do it because you're making interoperability with GPL software and this doesn't make your software a derivative work (but if you want to feel more safe then don't distribute Git inside your application package, a dependency is OK). Dirty workaround to avoid licensing headaches: note ...


1

About Impact.ttf Based on your question, you can find information about Impact.ttf from Microsoft site itself. See Impact.ttf 2.3 and Impact.ttf 5.0. The font isn't a copy right with Microsoft either. It just tells you that following Microsoft products are using this font, and they would have contractually worked out the mutual license to it. The font is ...


0

It is perfectly all right. However you need to be careful. In the whole code structure if there is only one file LICENSE.MIT, it doesn't make it clear whether it applies to only JSON.sh or other works. Hence ideally you should have your main license file (e.g. LICIENSE) which should mention that grant for JSON.sh is available through LICENSE.JSON.MIT or ...


2

This is indeed a great question. And the reason why it is great because it moves mere copyright domain to intellectual property domain. And the moment you talk about IP - there is no one way right! OK - in a nutshell let me rephrase this so that I know that I have understood right! Basically there are two pieces of software one is client and one is server. ...


2

Let's get some basics in discussed: SO what's a license really? A license is essentially a set of permissions with a set of conditions. A licence allows you do things provided you adhere to certain other conditions; this in turn also implies things you can't do! For example in a commercial licenses you can use but can't distribute. In GPL you can use, ...


0

The fact that a tool was used to produce some output does generally not give the copyright holder of the tool any rights to the output to the tool. For example, Microsoft has no rights at all to the documents that you create with Microsoft Word. There are some rare cases of tools where copyrighted parts of the tool are included in the output. That's very ...


7

For the regular GPL, the answer is no. Quoth the FSF FAQ: Q: Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? A: In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use ...


1

In your particular case (you are mentioning Qt) I believe that in practice giving a link to Qt - including to the download page of the particular version of Qt your are basing your product on - is probably enough. However, be sure that the link is valid (you have no control on how Qt people are managing their website). This means that you should at least ...


0

If you are the copyright holder, you can do whatever you like. That's because the only one who can sue you for a license violation is the copyright holder, and if you are the copyright holder, unless you are schizophrenic, nobody can sue you. If you use the GPL license, you have three choices: One, you can accompany every copy that you distribute with the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included