Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

I am not a lawyer, but this is how these licenses are usually interpreted in my experience: The MIT license is a so-called permissive license. It explicitely allows merging and sublicensing. That means you can use MIT-licensed code and relicense it under a different license. This allows you to use the code in any project regardless of the license. The ...


0

OK, this is easier than I thought. The PyQt folks didn't just release their software under the vanilla GPL. They added a special exception to the license, which allows me to release MY code under a non-GPL license. However, not all licenses are allowed: I must choose one of the open source licenses listed in the GPL_EXCEPTION.TXT file included with the ...


1

That ® indicates its a registered trademark. A search on google for 'bluetooth trademark' brings back Trademarks | Bluetooth Technology Website which reads in part: The Bluetooth word mark, figure mark, combination mark, and Bluetooth Smart and Bluetooth Smart Ready marks are all trademarks that are owned by the Bluetooth SIG and licensed out for use to ...


2

Once GPL, Always GPL. You can't distribute under the BSD if one of the libraries on which your application depends is licensed under GPL, nor can you close your source code. Dual licensing using GPL and a commercial license is a common arrangement among vendors. It basically states that, if you want to use their library for a "true" open-source ...


6

is this behaviour is legal according to GPLv2 License statements ? Yes do I have the right to change the name of the modified open source ? Yes Could you please provide justification from licenses with the answer. A name change is just a modification to the source code (etc) that embodies the name, and modification of "the work" is one of ...


3

Open source licenses (including the GPLv2) give you the right to modify a program written by someone else and distribute your modified version. There are few restrictions in the modifications that you can make. The most common restriction is that you can't remove or alter the copyright license. I am not aware of any open source licenses that forbid renaming ...


2

First of all, you have not included the legal text that is expected of a file that is released under the LGPL license. From a legal standpoint, that makes it unclear if the LGPL really applies to your library. I would recommend that you follow the guidelines from FSF on how to apply the (L)GPL to your code. With that out of the way, it is also a legal gray ...


3

From my reading of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html and the commentary provided in How can I legally use LGPL javascript in a commercial web site? Yes. That the code is minified in no way absolves the person using it from noting that the license of the code is LGPL and linking to the license. Furthermore, if there are any changes based upon your ...


4

Not being lawyers, we can't give legal advise here. What strikes me most in your license is the apparent contradiction that you start with Copyright 2014, [me] and also try to release the work into the public domain (which means that no copyright claims will be made). Furthermore, providing multiple compatible permissive licenses to choose from does not ...


1

You need to follow the terms of the license(s).1 1Honestly, that's it. For the licenses you cite (BSD, MIT) there is nothing within the license terms that say you must use the entire module. In fact, both of those licenses give you explicit permission to do what you're suggesting. MIT including without limitation the rights to use, copy, ...


2

First, the standard disclaimer: IANAL but a random stranger. I have been packaging an AGPL application(*) recently. It uses third party libraries distributed under jQuery, MIT, BSD (and some other) licenses. Here is how I have proceeded. My main intents when I designed this were: be compliant and be fair. While the first one should be sufficient, the ...


1

From reading the Wikipedia page on the MPL, it seems to me that you can "link from code with a different license". The license is even marked as such in the summary box. If you read the actual license, in its 2.0 version, section "Distribution of a Larger Work", you can read that you have to keep the library in question under MPL, regardless if you ...


2

As a general rule, if you don't distribute someone else's code you are not obliged by any of its licence terms when you distribute your own. The liability comes at the point where the code is actually merged. Assume that A writes and distributes code for B to use, and that A's program uses code written by C but A does not distribute any of it. Then the ...


3

You don't have to license your code at all in order to publicise it – with no license stating otherwise, other people can't do anything with your code except reading it. There are some exceptions: Copyright law may grant limited use of your work. One important example is the fair use clause in U.S. copyright law, another common exemption would be citations ...


0

Note that the answer depends in large part on the terms under which the open-source project accepts your code. Most will, at the very least, have a statement saying that by contributing it you have granted the project rights to use, distribute, etc. your contribution, and granted all the project's users rights to look at and execute your code. That doesn't ...


5

Everybody holds the copyright to the code they write. Which means by default the original author is the only person who can grant a license for that code. As open source project typically have many authors it is not feasible to track down all authors and get them to agree every time a licensing change needs to be made. To avoid this problem some open source ...


13

Each author retains copyright to their code. If the project is under the GPL, contributing the code requires that the code is licensed under the GPL. If you want to do something else with the code like releasing it in a different license, you'd need the permission of the original author. For many projects, the project owner requires contributors to assign ...


10

The copyright holder. By default, that's the author of the code in question (each individual author if there are many). Copyright can be assigned to someone else, and some open source projects do require copyright assignment as a condition of contributing.


3

I am going to address not the legal issue but whether it is a good idea at all. In other words the impact on the company of you choosing to have a personal license. If the product is something that makes your work easier but does not affect the ability of others in your company to maintain the same code, a personal license may be a good idea provided your ...


5

For Jetbrains, the corporate license is a license that's not linked to an individual. The personal license is linked to a specific person. What that means inside a company is that if you buy a corporate license for 10 users, any 10 people can use the product at any given time. If however you buy 10 personal licenses, only the 10 specific people who are ...


4

When you create a plugin for a product that uses the GPL license, then the plugin itself and any libraries that the plugin uses do not need to use the GPL license themselves. However, you are not entirely free in your choice of license. As the GPL terms apply to the entire product and spread out to all plugins as well, your plugin and all the libraries it ...


1

Copyright law regulates who can make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work. The default is that only the author/copyright owner can make and distribute copies and with a copyright license you give those rights also to others. What copyright law does not limit is how you can use a program once you obtained a legitimate copy. For that reason, there are ...


2

You asked for a definition: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). If you either (a) merge an OSS work into yours or (b) modify an OSS work and then distribute the result with yours, you are caught by this definition. ...


1

From a copyright standpoint, a program that is statically linked to a library is a derived work of that library. The reasoning to reach that conclusion is as follows: The (binary) code of the library is physically contained in the program when the library is statically linked. This makes the (binary) program a derived work of the (binary) library. The ...


0

Everything you are allowed to do is explicitly covered by each of those licences, and explained by related FAQs or similar documents. You really need to read them. But the answer is you're probably OK. Public domain says do what you like with the code (other than pretend you wrote it). ISC is the BSD licence, which is very permissive and popular with ...


11

Insert normal lawyeresqe disclaimer here. With that out of the way, your current employer would have a case against you. The GPL, or any copyright license for that matter, comes into play only when the work is redistributed. As your plugins have not yet been distributed, they are not really subject to the GPL, or any other license for that matter. Until ...


7

After making those modifications what's the correct thing to do next? Keep the licence info untouchable or try to update it including yourself with something like @author or @revision tags? I think you're confusing the software license and any prologue that might be part of the software. The license is where the owners of the copyright to the program ...


0

GPL nor BSD prevents you from selling your product GPL requires you to release everything under GPL, and make all source code available You can't change the license of the BSD licensed library to GPL Conclusion: you can't release it as is. As Bart hinted, you can get a commercial license for pyQT which would allow you to release it without putting ...


2

You'll have to consult the licensing rule of the code. In general, many open source frontend applications (e.g. Firefox, OpenOffice) considers their application name and logo as a trademark; so if you were to release a modified version of the app you will not be able to use the original trademarks/trade dress (thus IceWeasel, Torbrowser, LibreOffice). ...


1

To answer the third question first, the fact that your program uses a library licensed with license X does not necessarily mean that your program must also use license X. For permissive licenses, like BSD, you are completely free to choose a different license for your own code. When the library uses a strong copyleft license, like GPL, then you can avoid a ...


4

GPL restricts distribution of source code. Your Drupal code is server side, it lives on your server and no client can see it. It's not really been distributed. So, you don't have to release your code if you don't want to. As stated in the other answer, the Affero GPL is the GPL variant that requires you to release (which would be the same as distribute) the ...


7

If your code is sitting on a web server and you are only serving web pages (or web services containing application data), then you are not "distributing" under the terms of the GPL 2 or GPL 3. The Affero GPL is the one that requires you to release your source code if you are distributing web pages using software under that license.


4

I would add a comment, partly to signal to a reader that the file is not "vanilla", with links to any relevant documentation or an issue tracking system. Edit: So this situation reminds me of when a Linux distribution packages e.g. a library. Debian has guidelines and standards around how packages should be built and named, which could well vary from how ...



Top 50 recent answers are included