Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

Yes, this violates the license. The SDK doesn't spell out the GPL by name, but there's no doubt that the GPL is one of those Excluded Licenses. Hence, the SDK specifically bans you from distributing Distributable Code [incl. the icons] as part of your GPL application. As you have no other right to do so, regular copyright law kicks in and forbids you to ...


3

The University of Illinois/NCSA license is a permissive, MIT-style open source license. As the license does not impose any restrictions on redistribution or modification that are not also in the (L)GPL, the NCSA license is compatible with the (L)GPL license. This means that there are no legal restrictions on distributing an application that contains both ...


2

And, I am NOT going to distribute any GPL application (neither its sources) packaged together with CSCS. Copyright controls who is allowed to distribute something, not who is allowed to use it. If you don't distribute the GPL application, you can't infringe copyright, even if you depend strongly on it. Your user could infringe the conditions on which ...


2

Section 3.2 of the MPL 2.0 says: If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no ...


3

This situation is covered in the GNU GPL FAQ, in the section "I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?" in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they ...


4

The text of the LGPL is complex, as it attempts to define the term 'link', since the LGPL is intended to cover libraries. So it's a completely open legal question as to whether incorporating an LGPL executable (which is not a library) as part of a larger work is: the creation of a derivative work exempted from GPL provisions by the LGPL. the creation of a ...


10

Do consult a lawyer for this, anything you get from this site (such as the answer that follows) will not free you from any liability nor guaranteed that you will be safe from prosecution. This site is most definitively NOT a proper replacement for any sort of legal advice. Now to the matter at hand, from what I understand, LGPL will allow inclusion of a ...


0

AFAICT it is not forbidden to sell (L)GPLed software, as long as you provide a way to get its source; e.g. Red Hat does exactly this. I assume you don't make any modifications to the (L)GPLed tool, so linking to the canonical source code should be fine. It looks like the tool is specifically designed to be included as a part of a non-GPL derived work. At ...


12

LGPL allows you to link or embed binaries without opening your own source, so long as you provide the source code for the binaries and publish any changes you make to the libraries. You must also deploy your application in a way that allows someone to replace the LGPL'd library, if they so choose. In practice, this means that you must dynamically link to ...


0

You could re-implement the product in question. If the publicly available documentation is not detailed enough to create a faithful re-implementation, you need to first create such a detailed specification. This is called "clean room" or "Chinese wall" re-implementation / reverse engineering: one group creates a specification by reverse engineering the ...


6

This is not an open source license. Open source implies a free license which allows customers to make copies of the product and give them to others without having to pay you. However, such license conditions are perfectly reasonable for a proprietary product. When you would like to monetize your software that way you should hire a lawyer specialized in ...


2

If a licence file exists, it's rather natural to assume it applies to the folder (and its subfolders), so you can have a licence in each subproject folder and all is well. Other than that, you could have the license in each file and thus even change between licences on a per-file basis. Beyond that, I would point out that you could also have a repo for ...


1

Releasing patches may be ok so long as they are purely maintenance updates, and that you're not releasing enough code to enable piracy. If you have source or tools to produce those patches with that is. Some platforms allow you to place shims into the system which would mean you could make changes to the user experience without ever touching the original ...


5

If the license on the obsolete version 1 of the software does not give you the right to make modifications and to distribute your modifications, then there are no legal possibilities to provide continued support from within the community. The very first update you, as a community, provide will be in breach of the copyright on the software and the copyright ...


5

An aggregate is a collection of programs that are not collectively bound by the GPL. In other words, they are not a collective work. A collective work is bound by the GPL because the individual programs or modules form a collective whole. An aggregate is not bound by the GPL because The individual programs, if they communicate with each other, do so at ...


7

So long as you keep using the version of the software which was released under the MIT licence, you don't need to do anything: nobody, not even the copyright holder can revoke the licence you received. Of course, if you want to update to the newer CC-licenced version of the software, you would have to comply with whatever terms that version of the software ...


3

So let's take a look at first clause in the BSD 2-clause license template. Copyright (c) , All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of ...


5

1) Can someone sell a fork of an open-source software under GPL without distributing the source? Example: Can I modify a little bit GIMP, repackage it under another name, and sell it as a commercial product without giving source code (like Adobe Photoshop) ? Holy cow NO! That's exactly the sort of behavior that the FSF made the GPL to fight ...


6

The GPL requires all derivative works to be licensed under the GPL as well. If you fork a GPLed software and distribute your fork, then you are required to offer your software under the GPL. This implies that you have to make the source code available. From the GPL v3: 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. You may convey a work based on the ...


1

As stated in the license you quoted, you must keep the entire copyright notice, license and disclaimer intact. It is not sufficient to replace it with a reference. What you are allowed to do (and really should do) is add your own copyright to the existing copyright notice.


0

I ultimately chose to add Ant (org.apache.ant:ant) as dependency and pack it into uberjar with maven-shade-plugin. This way original code is re-used (which was my goal), and license-maven-plugin can download all project dependencies' licenses automatically. There is a small drawback of increased uberjar size, but it is negligible (~2 Mb for ant 1.9.4). Some ...


7

Dual licences Software licences are not exclusive, you can give the same code to everyone under terms of licence A, and to some people (who pay you) under the different terms of licence B. Of course, that refers to your code. If other people develop and distribute additions to your system under the GPL, then you can always reintroduce them back to your ...


7

Yes, undistributed improvements don't need to have source code released. This was an intentional decision when designing the GPL; you're allowed to modify the code for your own purposes without needing to tell anyone what you're doing, or to distribute anything related to it. The GPL was never intended to say "if you improve the code, you must release the ...


2

The easiest way to get around it is to document what you need the function to do, and then give that specification to your coworker and ask them to re-write it. Seventy lines isn't a ton to rewrite, but if you were to rewrite it right now you'd know how Apache did it and possibly (unintentionally) copy their code or way of doing it. If you think the Apache ...


16

Software can be dual licensed if all the copyright holders agree. Most companies that have a dual licensed product and accept contributions have some form of contributor license agreement that must be accepted before you can contribute code. In the case of ExtJS, it says: You hereby grant to Sencha and to recipients of software distributed by or on ...


4

In the vast majority of countries, you have absolutely no rights. Copyright automatically belongs to the author by default so until they explicitly grant you rights, you don't have any.


0

What happened is that the owners of PrePros changed the license going from version 4 to version 5. Version 4 of PrePros is available under the MIT license and can be used, changed and redistributed freely. Version 5 of PrePros does not have an explicit copyright license, so you must assume that you are not allowed to make changes or redistribute it. ...


3

There are no licenses with such restrictions in common use. Licenses with such a restriction also fall outside the definition of open source. Fears, such as yours of being held accountable for conclusions drawn from the results given by your application, are usually dealt with by adding a disclaimer to the software that you don't guarantee that the software ...


3

Your biggest problem is the other contributors. Unless you have a written agreement with them, they own the copyright to the bits they contributed. This means you need to get all of them to agree to release the software under a different license. Established projects require all contributors to sign a contributor's license agreement. If you have done this, ...


5

In principle, there is nothing wrong with accepting payment for software you provide, not even if that software is freely available through other channels. Some gotchas to look out for are: Bank account details are loved by criminals. If possible, prefer to use services like PayPal. Be careful with what you promise and what contracts you sign. What level ...


2

I am not a lawyer - this is not legal advise. You have copyright over the application (or parts of it) that you wrote, so you have a legal claim your rights have been infringed regardless of the status of the open source licenses and your obligation to open-source the code you own the copy right to. The issue over your obligation to open-source your ...


1

As there is no explicit copyright license attached to the code, nor any mention of a copyright license, the code falls under the default copyright protection. The default copyright protection means that the author/copyright holder has all rights on the code and you have none. In particular, you don't have the right to copy or modify the code and therefor ...


1

Note: This is more of a law question than a programming question. Consult a lawyer of your country if you need to be 100% certain. On your questions: Am I allowed to disassemble the program to study it? No. You are not allowed to disassemble or reverse engineer for that purpose. Does the copyright apply to the code (implementation), the behavior, ...


2

Looks like you're not the only one who's ever had this problem. This may be helpful: ... You can copy all of gameplay without any issues at all. That is not copyrightable or enforceable. The things that matter are assets - art, sound, music, video, etc. For example if you take ZX game and clone it with your own assets you will be perfectly fine ...


5

You won't find such a license, since the freedom to use the software commercially is an integral part of the Open Source Definition, specifically see clause (6), emphasis mine: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not ...


4

The GNU GPL is probably the closest thing to what you are looking for. While it expressly allows commercial use/sale the copyleft provisions are very good at deterring businesses from using it because they would have to open their source too.



Top 50 recent answers are included