Tag Info

New answers tagged

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.


1

Clause (a): "... working on your own applications ..." The example cited by Dudley is a situation where the small agency is creating what's known as a "work for hire" -- the work in question will belong to the Fortune 500 firm. Normally it is not the small agency's "own application". The agency cannot, for example, sell it or give it away on street corners ...


2

A few criticisms I found on the mailing list: It's too complex / hard to understand for non lawyers The copyright notice requirements are annoying The patent provisions make the license non free It's worse than the previous license. From: Henning Brauer (lists-openbsdbsws.de) Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 02:58:21 CST the point is that more and more ...


3

Jules' answer is exactly right. Allow me to intensify the final "why do it this way?" point. AGPL says others cannot improve MongoDB privately, then offer services based on their "enhanced versions," without at least making those improvements available to MongoDB, Inc. (among others). The AGPL is a response to criticism in the open source community that ...


8

No, a receiver of services provided using MongoDB has no standing to enforce its license. Only a copyright holder can do that, and they've promised not to (which, at least in English law, means that they cannot), so there is nobody who is in a position to legally require you to comply with the actual text of the license. Effectively, the MongoDB team have ...


8

It looks like size of your client is important. From Visual Studio 2013 and MSDN Licensing Whitepaper - November-2014 page 10: "Example 2: A Fortune 500 firm has outsourced the development of its store-locator mobile application to a small agency. The application is not an open source project. The agency has 5 employees working on the project and would ...


2

Why would anyone want such a restricted license? Quite simply, control. And possibly, ego, positioning, financial, and other advantages that derive from control. Over the last twenty years, numerous organizations have offered access to code on generous, "please use it, learn from it, enhance it, and pass it on!" terms. The GNU Public Licence, Apache, and ...


2

As jquery is a Javascript library that gets executed on the client machines, using it in a public-facing website can be seen as distribution of the code. When you distribute GPL licensed code, you must make the entire application open-source under the GPL or a compatible license. If my assessment of the Javascript code being distributed when used in a ...


0

No. You are not distributing your software, as you control the only server it will be installed on, and the GPL only places any requirements on you if you distribute to a third party. If you were to use AGPL components, that may require you to distribute the source code, but as it is only to your company's employees that you would be required to distribute ...


1

The basic premise that you can 'release' your software under the GPL without providing source is faulty. Just because you are the copyright owner, doesn't simply mean you can just do whatever you want, just that select the terms and conditions you are going to release it by. If you are going to claim to be releasing software licensed per the GPL, you ...


4

The FSF holds the following four freedoms as the essential freedoms for free software: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to ...


9

If you're the sole owner of the code, you can pretty much do whatever you want. I don't think you're going to sue yourself for violating the license that you released it under. But yes, releasing the binary X without the source S is violating the GPL. Anyone that took your binary and redistributed it would be in violation of your license as they didn't ...


4

While your proposal seems logically sound, and could indeed constitute a loophole in the phrasing of the GPL and/or AGPL, you have to consider the fact that courts have a tendency to look at legal documents such as licenses and contracts and attempt to interpret them in the way the original author intended them to be interpreted. In this case, it is clear ...


2

No you must provide the source code as well! Your question is answered in the GPL FAQs! The relevant question/answer from the FAQ: Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of ...


3

If your software only interacts with the server through the standard OS interfaces or other standardized interfaces, then you can use the GPL server without question. The GPL license applies to entire applications, but there are limits to what is considered part of such an application. In particular, the boundaries are: system APIs API's that conform to ...


5

All code is protected by copyright in one form or the other (unless it has been placed explicitly in the public domain). If you do not attach an explicit copyright license, the default copyright license applies, which amounts to "the code belongs to the author and nobody else can use it." If you publish your code, especially if it is on a code sharing site ...


0

In order to distribute your project that is a derivative of the original project, you must have permission to do so, because by default copyright law forbids that. Such permission is called a license. You apparently have multiple choice for how to obtain permission. One of them is the GPL. If you choose that way, then you must comply to the GPL's terms: ...


14

The Apache 2.0 license is very different from the GPL license, in at least two aspects: Under the Apache 2.0 license, you are allowed to distribute binaries without providing the source code with it. (Under the GPL, you must always provide the source code) The GPL license carries over to the entire application. The Apache 2.0 license does not and applies ...


5

The Apache 2.0 licence is completely unlike GPL. In particular, it says You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: So provided you meet the conditions listed (which are generally not ...


5

Yes, this is necessary. You cannot just include a link to the license text. The reason is clearly stated in the GNU FAQ: Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program? Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are. It ...


2

The GNU FAQ says the following, which should pretty much answer your question: Can I make binaries available on a network server, but send sources only to people who order them? If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well. The easiest way to do this would be to ...


2

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any impediment to using a permissive license like BSD or MIT. Consider that, for many businesses, the main attractive feature of those licenses is the ability to distribute binaries without source: Bob writes a BSD-licensed program, and then Foo Corp builds on the software and distributes their new version without source ...



Top 50 recent answers are included