Tag Info

New answers tagged

4

The Apache License has nothing to say about buying or selling software. It neither endorses nor prohibits the sale of software so licensed.


4

Actually, there are products available with a licensing scheme which fulfills very similar requirements. It typically works by picking a dual license model. You publish your software, for example, under a GPL license (which theoretically allows selling of the software or derivatives, but makes it practically impossible). But you tell people on your website ...


1

The license is specified in the README.md for the project: The converted file is licensed under the same licenses as the Mozilla source file: MPL 1.1, GPL v2.0 or LGPL 2.1 As such, the certificates are not public domain, and are explicitly licensed for public distribution under multiple licenses. In other projects, the license of the certificate ...


0

Of course you can use LGPL-licensed libraries, but you have to fulfil the requirements stated in the license. First of all, you are not required to do anything unless you choose to convey/distribute the library or an application that is “linked” to the library (see also §2 of the GPL v3). Since your application resides on your server, you are not ...


6

What you describe appears to be perfectly legal. The GPL allows any licensee (anyone who bought it) to sub-license it to others for any price they want or even for free when they feel generous. Those other people are now also licensees who can also sell or gift the software to others. So when someone offers a GPL software for $100, and you want to pay less, ...


1

It depends. You should ask a lawyer. Actually, you should ask n lawyers, one for each country you intend to distribute your software to.


5

There are no standard (open-source) licenses that fit your needs. Your requirement that your customers can't redistribute the software rules out all open-source licenses. You can create your own license that allows the purchaser to make modifications for their own use but forbids redistribution. To create the license, you are well advised to consult a ...


1

This case is explained in the GNU GPL FAQ: 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? In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make ...


4

Author here. Trianglify images are yours to do whatever you want with. You could even trademark a trianglify image to use in a logo. It's just a tool, what you produce using the tool is content that you own.


1

The MIT license only requires that the copyright notice is kept. It does not require you to keep the same license. And this makes sense: The MIT license wants you to do with the code whatever you want, but if you build upon the source code, it will still contain parts that were written by the original author(s). These authors retain the copyright for the ...


1

New additions to an MIT-licensed library don't preclude the inclusion of any additional copyright holders. So yes, you should include the new copyright declarations. The MIT license is included in any derivative works. So if you use the library in your application, and your application has its own license, you still have to include the MIT license (and ...


2

A software license tells you two things: What you can do with the software What you cannot do with the software However, a software license does not offer any guarantees. Specifically: It doesn't prevent anyone from suing you, even if you follow the license in good faith, and It doesn't prevent said person from winning in court, if they do sue you. ...


13

The GPL describes rules about the use of the source code, not rules about the use of products of the application itself. The most obvious example is the GNU compiler. The compiler is released under the GPL. It is perfectly fine to use that to compile programs that are not released under the GPL. What you are restricted from is modifying the GNU compiler ...


4

No a piece of work created by a GPL piece of software is not generally a derived work. There are exeptions, where for example, the GPL app is a code generator which produces source code containing significant bits of the original app. But producing an image, or any other piece of creative work with a GPL tool is not itself GPL.


0

There is no standard way to mention which licenses are used by the third-party libraries that you use. This has to do with the different requirements that licenses place on this. For some licenses(like BSD), it is possible that the license text is only present as a comment in the source code, while other licenses (like GPL and Apache) are so lengthy that ...


1

Piwik is open-source software released under the GPLv3 license. This means that you have the right to create a service that is built upon the functionality of piwik. If you use any part of Piwik in your project, the GPL applies to you. The limitations on your project depend on the business model you are going for. If your customers will always connect to ...


1

The other answers have already shown you how to make money off software without making money directly off the sale, however, there is still one reason why someone would straight up buy your software: some people or organizations like to have someone to sue, and it is easier to sue someone you have given money to (and thus have a contract of sale with) than ...


5

There are several business models for Free Software (which I feel is a more interesting terminology thant Open Source), and you should also look into the FSF site and its what is free software page. Notice also that even proprietary software is often non-profitable thru licensing. It is rumored that the development costs of SAP software is not paid by the ...


2

Exhibit A: BSD license text Exhibit B: MIT license text First off, you really ought to read both of those licenses. Really, go on now, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read both. What you should immediately notice is just how similar the two licenses are. Really, they are. Basically, they both state "retain the copyright notice" and "retain ...


3

You assume that the recipient wants to give away your software. It's possible that your customer has a vested business interest in not sharing the software. For example, if you sell an open-source industry-specific application to a business, that business might want to keep that application out of the hands of competitors in the same industry. (Of course, ...


3

Modifying open source software. Sometimes people need open source software to do something it doesn't already do and no one is willing to do that for free. So a company might pay someone to do it for them. For instance, a company might want to release some hardware running linux. But their hardware requires new drivers. So they pay someone (or maybe ...


2

When you sell something -- anything -- you are trading something of value (the product, services or experience) for something of value (money). When you sell open source software, what you are typically selling isn't the software, but rather the services and experience that you've bundled with the software. For example, you may have made an installer that ...


7

Translations (both to a different natural language and to a different programming language) are considered to be Derived Works. When creating a derived work that is so radically different from the original as a translation to a different (not closely related) programming language results in, it is actually quite hard to understand how the requirements from ...


-2

A copyright applies to the original source code only. I cannot provide legal advice (legally :) ) in my country, but when you use a different language, it is a different body of source code. Ethical considerations are a different matter. I would attempt to use a license that is agreeable to the original authors, to preserve the spirit of the original open ...


1

This is really a legal question and I am not a lawyer. But from what I understand about contracts and software licenses in general: (1) If you release software under an open-source license, then unless that license says that you have the right to revoke it -- in which case I don't think it would qualify as "open source" by definition -- then you cannot ...


4

Under normal circumstances, it can be assumed that contributions to an open-source project are made available under the same license as the project itself. In very rare cases, a contributor might explicitly state that the contribution is made under a different license than the one used for the rest of the project. In such cases the copyright situation ...


5

Quite often, corporate misconduct is revealed by disgruntled employees or ex-employees. When no inside source is available, and the only proof you have is the compiled binary of the product, it might get harder to prove that a copyright violation has happened. But there are a few things you can try: One possible sign is identical behavior. When both ...


1

This is a hotly disputed aspect of software licensing. One interpretation is that, if you are not -distributing- a library, you do not need a license, nor do you need to accept or comply with any terms attached to use of the library (with the caveat that you might still have to accept terms to do any meaningful testing of your program). By this ...


6

There is no ethical problem with doing this, as long as customers are aware of it before they make the decision to purchase the product. However; if someone purchased the product before it required internet access, and then the product changes without their consent (e.g. using some sort of "auto-update") then I think it is an ethical problem (a form of ...


2

This depends a lot on context. If you want to use any open source software you are free to. If you want to use any open source software for the basis of internal company projects then you are also free to ( since the more contagious licences like the gpl require you to provide the source code upon request to all who the compiled code is distributed to, ...


6

There are some things to be aware off: First, your company lawyers may get a fit if you use third party code without asking them. So you shouldn't use any third party code without telling your boss or manager and getting their consent. As you said, you are not a lawyer. Second, a nasty one: If you find code on the internet, and it has some license, you ...


19

In general, the legalities in licensing that can occur as a result of the use of open-source software boil down to two factors: Commercial use, and Distribution. Distribution means "conferring" software to a third party outside the organization. Since you say you only use the software internally, legal mechanisms like "copyleft" (the term used for the ...


0

My understanding would be: if you come into possession of copy of the Red Star Linux kernel (at least), then it legally must give you the rights enumerated under the GPL. There is, however, no requirement that they allow you to come into possession of it. The more usual example of this is internal corporate software. It might be built in such a way as to ...


8

As a Linux derivate, it should be licensed under the GNU GPL, but it isn't. That means that by distributing it under a different license, the KCC is violating the copyright of thousands of Linux contributors. However, that does not mean that someone who obtained a copy of it can redistribute it under GPL, as that would also be a copyright violation, in this ...


0

No. You need to have contributors explicitly sign a CLA, as GitHub themselves do.


1

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Mozilla Public License. It's similar to the LGPL except it allows static linking. MPL version 2 is compatible with the GPL/LGPL. Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) vs Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL 3.0)



Top 50 recent answers are included