Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

If you want an opinion that you can rely on, ask a lawyer. OpenJDK is licensed under the GPL (v2) with some exceptions. The GPL explicitly allows distribution of the software, including works (such as binaries) derived from the software. The exceptions don't change this. Historically, this was not true. But it is now. See point 1.


5

If you are literally translating the C++ code that implements the algorithm, then you are creating a derived work of apt and you must license your code under the GPL as well. On the other hand, if you implement the algorithm based on a textual/mathematical description of the algorithm without looking at the C++ implementation, then your code is not a ...


3

CC BY-NC prohibits commercial use of the library. This conflicts with the definition of open source and so, no, the aggregate software would not be open source. Additionally, the definition of 'non commercial' is not well defined. This is the realm of lawyers. Is a non-profit with advertisements (or a donation button) on the page backed by something with ...


0

Joshua Gay's edit looks sloppy at best: I found at least 2 clauses and a section in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode that look incompatible with any GPL. I've written a letter to the FSF asking them to clarify this matter and the properties of the edit. This is what I just got in reply, from none other than Joshua himself (nested blocks ...


2

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. If I really had to do what you're asking, I would release two separate versions, one licensed GPL with the GPL'd component, and one licensed BSD without the GPL'd component. I don't think it would work to have one distribution with both "versions" in it because GPL is triggered by distribution, so since you're ...


-3

You may license and distribute your application code under the MIT license, however you may not distribute binaries. Essentially you must let your users build their own binaries using their own copy of the GPLed library.


4

Does your library depend on the GPL libraries for its proper functioning? If it does, then you have created a derived work, and your license must also be GPL. If your library does not depend on the GPL libraries for its proper functioning, and losing the GPL libraries does not substantially impair your library from working properly, then you should be able ...


2

There's no such major license, as FOSS licenses' primary goal is to maintain the "four freedoms" (or a part thereof for permissive licenses). Any restrictions on possible future functionality (apart from the odious DRM that Stallman banned in GPLv3, asserting it has no place in the future1) are seen as highly undesirable and are gonna condemn a license as ...


0

First disclaimers 1. I'm not a lawyer - and this isn't a forum for a legal advice 2. if you ask 5 different IP lawyers RE GPL compliance, you will likely get 5 different answers. It has not been really tested much in US courts AFAIK. With that, here's my take. In short, I believe you can release A by itself under GPL (provided you meet the source code ...


4

Consider that the company likely owns the copyright (work for hire) on the programs being created, and is also the user. This means that the license is irrelevant: a license is an agreement the owner of the software's copyright and anyone who wishes to use the software. If the two parties are the same entity, using any license makes no sense. That being ...


2

If all you did was run the translation tool over the sources, you have no claim to copyright on the translated version because no creative work on your part went into it. As the original author will probably not be supporting the C# version, it is a good idea to mention that you are responsible for the C# version. You could do this like so: Copyright ...


0

I propose a header like this, which keeps the original copyright notice intact (IMO a must) while making clear that contacting the original author doesn't make much sense: Original Java Version, see http://github.com/originaljavalib: Copyright (c) 2014 Original Author <original@email.address> C# Version, translated using foobartool: Copyright (c) ...


4

You can distribute software A as GPL, but only without the additional features provided by proprietary library B. If you bind new features in software A to proprietary library B, then you must also distribute B's source code under the GPL. Binding the two softwares in this fashion creates a derivative work. The only way you might get away with licensing A ...


2

Assuming you are the copyright holder for all the code, then yes you can do this. But as I understand things, no other entity will be able to compliantly create a derived work and distribute it because of the incompatibility of the licenses for the code and the "resources". This problem doesn't apply to you since you're the owner of the code and hence ...


5

I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. The title of questions (‘Can I change license?’) does not match its body (‘Is it possible to license my changes by Apache v2 license?’). Of course, you can not change the license. Even most permissive free software licenses, such as Expat and 2-clause BSD licenses¹, ...


8

From the EPLv1.0 REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and b) its license agreement: i) effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties and conditions, ...


2

The GPL requires that any time you distribute the software, you must either include the source code or make it available for download with clear instructions on how to do so (e.g. provide a URL to your public repository or download page). You are only obligated to provide the source code to whomever you are distributing binaries. For the vast majority of ...


2

Yes and no. If you change the license on Github, then anyone who grabs that copy of your software is bound to the new license. The caveat is that anyone who had previously grabbed a copy of your source code are bound to the old license. If you have an idea of which license or restrictions you want to place, it would be better to do it now. It's less of a ...


1

Creative works, like books, software, images, etc., are always protected by copyright, even if there is no explicit claim to copyright on them. The default copyright "license" is that only the original author has the right to distribute and/or modify the work. If something can be released into the public domain depends on the jurisdiction. Some ...


2

Yes, at least in the US and in all EU member states, copyright exists by default and rights to use the work are automatically reserved either to its author or their employer (if the work is written as part of their obligations to the employer). In the specific case of examples in a text book, tutorial, or other similar document, you could argue (unless the ...


3

You need to provide him with a license to use your code. The Apache license should suffice. It provide liberal redistribution provisions, while preserving the original copyrights of all contributors, and doesn't contain a "copyleft" provision. Copyleft means roughly that the entity using your code must open-source their code under the same license; ...


0

Most permissive licenses would be suitable for your purpose, because a permissive license allows to combine the work with another and release it under any license you want. But keep in mind that some conditions might apply, like giving credit to the original authors. So make sure to read the license properly before considering it for use in your project. The ...


0

The standard way to apply a license to a software is to put the full license text in a file called LICENSE or COPYING included with the source code and then put a short notice in a comment at the top of each source file (naming the copyright date, holder, license and saying where to find the full text of the license). GPLv3 requires that if the program does ...


0

I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. You have to include a copyright notice (a ‘manifesto’, if you will) to each file that contains your work. That ‘manifesto’ shall consist of: A line Copyright © <years> <owner>. Where <years> are years when this very file was created and ...


2

The Creative Commons Attribution license is a "open" license. It gives you the right to use and modify the data in any way you see fit, as long as you give proper attribution to the source of the data. Migrating the data to a different database engine would be fine. For the other data sources, you need to check on a case-by-case basis if their license ...


6

If you want to remain free in which license to choose for your own parts of the application, you can use libraries with any license that doesn't try to extend its scope to the entire program, but is limited to the library in question. So, the licenses that you must avoid are strong copyleft licenses, such as GPL and AGPL. If you want to use a library with ...


3

Copyright licenses specify if and under which conditions you can make modifications to something that is created by someone else and if and under what conditions you can distribute the original or modified versions. The default copyright 'license' is "all rights reserved", which means that only the original author is allowed to make changes and distribute ...


0

It is mainly for practical reasons that copyright protection is applied on the level of files and not on change-sets. First of all, most of the copyright law and the ideas encased in it stem from an era far before electronic copies existed. In those days there was no effective mechanism to make changes to a copyrighted work and only distribute those ...



Top 50 recent answers are included