New answers tagged

3

If you are an intern, that question is not one that you should even try to answer. Your boss should be made aware that you want to use this GPL licensed software, and he needs to agree with it. If he agrees, you are fine. If he doesn't agree, don't use the GPL licensed software. If using the software forces your boss to do something that he doesn't want to ...


1

If you run the code on your own servers without distributing it, you don't have to release your source code. If you distribute your code which links to the GPL code, then you must release your source code. If you distribute any modified GPL code, you have to release the modifications, even if your code does not link to it. Technically I think this means ...


5

The GPL licence does not requires you to publish the modifications. It only requires that if you provide the software to someone, you should provide him the source code and the right to distribute it. I suppose that you will use the code internally only (which applies even if you have external user, you don't distribute them the software, so you don't have ...


3

Term 13 of the AGPLv3: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive ...


0

If your software is GPL licensed, you can charge: Any amount you want for the software itself. Reasonable cost for providing the source code. Nothing for the license. How successful this is depends on the situation. If you wrote some customer specific software for a business, that business would have the right to ask you for the source code and hand the ...


0

Yes, but only if you license your product as AGPL as well. Just offering to provide source code to whoever asks is not enough. That does not prevent you from asking money for the product, but it means your customers have more rights than you maybe like. In particular, it would be perfectly fine for your first customer to put up your software for free on ...


2

Sure thing - none of the GPL licenses, including AGPL, forbids commercial activity. See http://www.affero.org/oagf.html for more information. Moreover, there are plenty of software with well established commercial ecosystem around it. MongoDB and RhodeCode what I recall from the top of my head.


0

You have two options. You can: Comply with the AGPL's licensing terms for GhostScript, which means that you must license your entire program under the AGPL (the terms of which require you to distribute the entire source of your program), or Pay for a commercial license of GhostScript. The problem here is not one of "arm's length communication." The ...


1

Sure. The GPL. There are many companies that make money by providing services and support for an open-source project. The GPL insures that no other company can take the code private and turn it into a proprietary application. You can also go with a Dual-Licensing model, like Sencha does. The motivation for paying for a commercial license is that you don'...


2

Short answer: Yes, you must attribute. The AGPL (especially v3) is about as unambiguous as it gets. Not only do you need to fully attribute the source, it's a near-certainty (especially with v3) that your code will come under the AGPL whether you like it or not. If you really have 'read half the internet', then you should know this. It sounds like you are ...


2

When converting a program from one source language to another source language, you create a derivative work. It's the same principle than a translation into a foreign language of a book. Law is heavily dependent on your jurisdiction. But the general principle is: you need the authorisation of the copyright holder to create a derivative work. ...


2

The MIT license is a liberal license that basically says that you can do anything with the code that you want to, including making it closed source, translating it to another language, and so forth. The MIT License (MIT) Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a ...


1

None of the MPL, MIT or Apache licenses are viral. This means that none of the licenses tries to extend its reach beyond the files that it is explicitly applied to. Additionally, all three of the licenses are permissive in nature, so they allow the code to be included in other projects with only few restrictions. Combined, this means that your project can ...


17

In the year 2000, Borland released the code to its InterBase database software as open source. For weird corporate politics reasons, they quickly walked it back and decided that further development of InterBase would continue as a proprietary product, as it had before, and they were able to do that. As noted above, they were the copyright holder and they ...


16

Is that possible with me as the original copyright holder (with no one having contributed changes except me)? Yes, of course. It's your code, you can do whatever you want with it. Even if I release my program as open source, I am the copyright holder after all, am I? Yes, of course. If you weren't, you wouldn't be able to release it as open source, ...


7

As the original copyright holder and no one else holding the copyright to any portions of the project, you can choose to close-source a later version. You can also choose to change the license on previously released versions. It won't stop anyone from using the version(s) under the license they received it under, though.


1

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that as long as you are not distributing the software, you don't need to do anything special. You are free to use it for commercial uses. This license was created before the concept of the cloud and the AGPL was created to address this loophole: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html


1

If you are not including the source and you aren't releasing the source files (since you aren't required to release the original or modified source files for Apache License 2.0 projects), then I don't see why you it would matter if you put a notice that you edited the files in the header, since no one other than you would see them. Instead, just make sure ...


0

The normal practice is that all files written as part of one project are all provided under the same copyright license. This means that you should at least copy over the license text that is used in the other (source) files in the project. Whether you should add your name to the copyright statement can't really be answered by us. It depends mostly on how ...



Top 50 recent answers are included