Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

The standard solution is dual licence. Release under GPL, retain the original copyright and when you're ready re-release under some different licence. Profit! However, if you want to stop people from using your code to provide a commercial service, you will almost certainly need a custom licence. Likely terms will include: free for private and ...


2

The title of the question says you need a small(??) commercial addition while in the question text you say that you don't want to allow people to earn money using your work. This seems to be contradictory. Here are some ideas that can help you: If you are a creator you have the copyright on the code then you can publish your project under multiple ...


3

Almost by its nature, Open Source software tend to have less in the way of rules and more in the way of guidelines. There's also a fair amount of etiquette, politeness and respect to make things easier. The main points that I consider when I am contributing to open source software are: respect the standards used in the code, whatever they are (within ...


1

#include <ianal.h> Document style licenses are often a poor fit for source code. Of these, the ones that are a gift (and that is a word with legal implications) are the most problematic. Public domain, as seen in the US, is a gift. In particular, a gift may be revoked for any reason. This makes something that is in the public domain possibly ...


0

I regret to say that I think your question as asked is conflicted. If you genuinely want to maximise the ways in which people can utilise your code then you must (among other things) allow and encourage them to take that code and pretend it's theirs. If you don't want to require any kind of attribution then you must in effect disclaim authorship as well as ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...



Top 50 recent answers are included