Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

Any licensor can issue multiple (different) licenses aimed at different user segments, specifically with different "abilities to pay." In your example, Packery used an "open ended" license for non-commercial use, and a more restrictive one for commercial use. That kind of practice is quite common.


2

Definitly. It is called Multy-Licencing, and it is quite common: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing The point is that you as a copy right holder can publish your work under as many separate licence as you like. UPDATE Typical use cases are these: You are developing a library. You create a GPL version for opensource projects to use, and a ...


1

In this case, the difficult legal test is deciding whether your data-consuming application can legally be considered "combined with" your AGPL data-producing application. The FSF proposes that two programs must communicate "at arms length" to be considered separate works. (The tricky bit about this rule is that no one is entirely sure how long programs' arms ...


1

For copyright, a program and the data that the program operates on (or the data that come out of the program) are considered to be completely separate works and the copyright license of the one does not affect how you can license the other. The one exception is if the program copies (part of) its internals to the output. Then the output is considered to be a ...


0

The AGPL is the Affero General Public License, and offers some protection for users from proprietary lock-in when they use a web service powered by free code. There are a couple of recent versions from different authors (Affero, Inc, and the Free Software Foundation respectively): Affero General Public License v2 http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html GNU ...


1

A message like "This app uses various projects released under license XXXX" is displayed on the app website. No notice is present inside the application... It’s moot whether BSD licenses allow that, but I could not imagine how the following clause from both MIT licenses (Expat and X11) could be read to make that possible: The above copyright ...


2

Most OSS licenses don't try to precisely prescribe what is expected, as they cannot reasonably know what environment they run in. After all, the freedom to run FOSS code in many environments is a fundamental part of what it means to be FOSS code. Instead, there's usually a clause that relies on implicit or contextual norms. For instance, the requirement ...


0

The exact terms vary from license to license, but most licenses require that the copyright message is somewhere where the end-user can find them. You can not assume that a regular end-user visits your website. And it is even less reasonable to assume that a regular end-user will unpack the APK file to look for the license files. Android end devices usually ...


5

The license is intended to protect your copyright and interests, not to take them away. As the only author of the library, you are free to relicense it under whichever scheme you wish, including for usage in commercial products. Indeed, it's not that uncommon. For instance, PolarSSL is released under GPLv2, but a license can be bought for usage in closed ...


1

Copyright protects your work from being copied. As in someone taking a direct copy of your source code. A patent could be used to protect any methods or original algorithms in your software. But the patenting is an expensive process and defending a patent is even more expensive. Always assuming your software is genuinely original, non obvious, and, not ...


2

It is not a great idea to write a license by yourself. Even if its wordings would be absolutely correct, people might be in doubt about it validity. The shortest free software license I met, that is considered valid by some authoritative organization is GNU All-Permissive License: Copyright <year> <name> Copying and distribution of this file, ...


3

It's always better to have some sort of license, even if it's as simple as your example. Code without a license cannot be assumed to be in the public domain. The author of the code always has an implicit copyright, at least in the United States, and if the author hasn't stated any permissions... well, then you don't have permission. Even if the author ...


4

Patents in software are generally not granted in European patent offices. Under the EPC, a computer program claimed "as such" is not a patentable invention (Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC). Patents are not granted merely for program listings. Program listings as such are protected by copyright. For a patent to be granted for a computer-implemented ...


3

I honestly think you need to give up on not distributing code in your case. Closed source does not mean you don't/can't distribute code, it means that they are not allowed to distribute it. I think you should really evaluate your goals. If you want to stop people from looking at your code, then use an obfuscateor, if you want to bill per install then use a ...


0

What about using Zend Guard or ionCube PHP Encoder? Or why is it a problem to distribute your source code for a fee? This is a problem not special to PHP. Many companies write libraries that they sell in source code form.


2

Note: for any non-open-source code on github, you can still fork it - at least on github. This is useful because many of us will see the title "code with no license ... can I fork it?" and come here wondering about github. (I did not reproduce the words "open source" in the question text for the reasons mentioned in other answers.) This minimal license is ...


0

If you build something "from scratch," this doesn't apply. But if you use "Application X" as your starting point, and tweak or "take off" on it, you are likely covered by the same license, even if your end product is rather different. This is a fine point, to be covered by lawyers, but it could turn on something as simple as whether or not you downloaded ...


3

No, it is not necessary to include the license in every file. This is a recommended practice, because it ensures that if somebody is viewing one of the files from your project in isolation from the rest they will be able to identify the terms of use for it, but in the end, as long as you do something that makes it clear what the intended license terms are, ...


2

Your question appears to have two parts: How to comply with an LGPL backed source request. Why the authors of a library you included would request their own source. Source distribution mechanics The first question is pretty mechanical and fairly straightforward. Namely: tar / zip up the files that were used and send them to the requestor. It makes ...


2

Surviving the treacherous landscape of open-source licenses can be difficult at times but you should respect the reason why programmers licence their software in the first place. In most instances they write open-source software out of the kindness of their heart. They don't get paid for it. They do get a warm fuzzy feeling from the fact they may have ...


10

Your friend is wrong. First, the GPL only requires to disclose your source code to your customers when your software runs on their machines. Your load balancer runs on your own hardware, so you don't need to provide the sourcecode to anyone who connects to it. There is a variant of the GPL which requires to disclose the sourcecode to everyone who "interacts ...


3

A software program and the icons it uses are generally not considered derived works of each other under copyright law. This means that there is no interaction between the license used for the icons and the license used for the software. The licenses do not even have to be compatible with each other. That said, the CC-BY license of the icons does place some ...


8

In your case, the particular software you are using is licensed under "GPLv2 or any later version," which can be included in GPLv3-licensed code. If the code you wanted to use were using GPLv2 only, then it would not be legally possible to include that code in your GPLv3-licensed distribution. We can consult the inter-GPL-compatibility table from the FSF's ...


3

The following is from the "Copyright" file included in the Aspell distribution: This English word list is comes directly from SCOWL 7.0 (up to level 60, using the speller/make-aspell-dict script, http://wordlist.sourceforge.net/) and is thus under the same copyright of SCOWL. The affix file (only included in the aspell6 package) is based on the ...


1

So what’s your question? Would your work count as a derivative work from (work based on) a dictionary or not? I am not a lawyer (and you should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues), so you probably would not interested in my opinion about that, but I really do not understand why it bothers you. Copyleft of GNU GPL protects free ...


5

Its fuzzy. You're going to need to talk to someone who is familiar with the intellectual property of copyrights and word lists in your jurisdiction. Lists of facts doesn't enjoy copyright in the United States. The court case for this is Feist v. Rural where it was ruled that copyrightability is based on originality. In this case, a collection of phone ...



Top 50 recent answers are included