Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

There are two cases in which it is possible to effectively change the copyright license on existing code. The existing copyright license gives you the right to change the license or to sub-license the code. The GPL licenses do not fall in this category of licenses. You are one of the copyright holders on the code and all copyright holders explicitly agree ...


3

There is a good, long, accepted answer already. This is a short answer. Yes, as the sole copyright owner you can change the licence for all future distributions. You cannot change history. Yes, if you have ever distributed binaries without source code under GPL then the obligation to provide source code of that version to those who relied on it is ...


3

As you copied parts of the other library into your library, the authors/copyright holders of the parts you copied must also be mentioned as (joint) copyright holders of your library. For that reason, neither option is correct. A correct way to provide the right copyright and license informations is Copyright 2014 <original author names>, <new ...


2

I shall assume that your main purpose is to tell potential users of your source code what you would like them to do, rather than actually suing anybody. For the latter, please see your friendly lawyer. I would suggest you need three things. Start with a base licence in a form that covers most of the bases, but does not have the specific clause you want. ...


2

Yes, what you're proposing with an additional copyright line would be fine. Remember that copyright != licensing. The license is the permissions others have in using a given work. The copyright indicates who owns the intellectual property associated with creating the work. In this case, you have made non-trivial modifications to the project so you are ...


2

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) already explains their motivations pretty well. Their goal is to give users freedom. Freedom to modify the source code of the programs they use as they see fit, freedom to distribute their modifications to others. The only way users can get that freedom is if they have access to your source code. The GPL therefore ...


2

https://github.com/github/linguist does pretty much exactly what you want: Linguist defines a list of all languages known to GitHub in a yaml file. In order for a file to be highlighted, a language and a lexer must be defined there. Most languages are detected by their file extension. For disambiguating between files with common extensions, we ...


1

For a formal answer on the compatibility of the two licenses, you need to ask a copyright lawyer or the FSF. My, non-lawyer, take on it is that the two licenses are not compatible and that you can't use file A in a GPL project. The licenses are incompatible because the license on file A gives you fewer rights than the GPL (you don't have the right to ...


1

Look at the Makefile and find out which compiler is used. If this is gcc, look at its rules for guessing the language. For scripting languages, look at the first line, the one that starts with #!. If it is not present, find in other scripts how the one you are examining is invoqued. Pay attention to how the $PATH variable is set.


1

Both Apache and LGPL are compatible in the way you are using them: as different components. It would be more complex if you were trying to combine in one component code from several licenses under a single one (although the licenses you use above would allow under some conditions to relicense the code to certain licenses). What you should do┬╣ is to include ...


1

HighCharts is not open source software. HighCharts is available under two licences: Creative Commons BY-NC. This license allows free redistribution and modification of the source, but it restricts the applications in which it can be used. In particular, you can't use the software received under this license in a commercial way (which HighCharts defines as ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible