Reputation
3,004
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
2 12 12
Newest
 licensing
Impact
~33k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 1 vote cast
Oct
2
comment Modifying GPL program to expose internal functions for use in non-GPL program
Unless an alternative exists it would be easy to argue that your program is a derivative work.
Oct
1
comment Modifying GPL program to expose internal functions for use in non-GPL program
Is your proprietary program usable and useful without the GPL program? If not, your code might be considered a derivative work.
Sep
15
comment Using code under Apache 2.0 License in my program using MIT License
@MemphiZ If the derivate work you create is licensed under the Apache 2 license you must follow the requirements of Section 4. Redistribution It is very clear what you must do. If you want to mix licenses it is not at all clear what you must do.
Sep
14
comment Using code under Apache 2.0 License in my program using MIT License
Is there a reason you don't want to use the Apache License for your work? Apache and MIT are functionally nearly the same. (The apache license has some patent right grants that the MIT license is missing). Having a single license will make things much easier for you and any potential users.
Sep
2
comment Add GPL to an existing application
In the US at least, if you have no license for your code it is implicitly covered by copyright with "All rights reserved." Code without a license may not be used without permission.
Jun
8
comment GPLv3 frontend and BSD backend, do I have to disclose the backend source?
I agree, but the opinion that matters is the copyright holder, they are the only entity that can take legal action. Of course, after they take legal action the court's opinion is the one that matters.
Jun
2
comment Using an LGPL licensed library that may or may not include GPL licensed code from an MIT licensed library
Does the MIT licensed library work without libRaw? If not, it could be argued that the unnamed MIT licensed library is actually a derivative work of libRaw.
Jan
19
comment Best approach to develop / distribute proprietary module
What are you trying to achieve? Why can't you just use plain PHP code?
Jan
19
comment How to comply with LGPL 2.1 source-code request?
Which is probably fine on Linux or OSX or Windows but iOS does not allow the user to replace shared libraries.
Jan
12
comment How to comply with LGPL 2.1 source-code request?
Be aware that the LGPL (section 6.a) requires that you distribute unlinked object code for a work that is linked with LGPL code. This is to allow the end user to modify the library and relink with your code. So the next request you get may be for the unlinked object code.
Sep
8
comment Does distributing GPLd assets with a non-GPL application violate the license?
@DmitryAlexandrov Ah I see I missed the bit about distribution as a whole would be GPL licensed, you are correct. (You are also correct that this isn't an "aggregate" as defined in the GPL)
Sep
8
comment Does distributing GPLd assets with a non-GPL application violate the license?
I think you misunderstand "GPL-compatible", a license is GPL compatible if it can be combined with GPL code and the aggregate distributed under the GPL. You may not combine GPL code code with a compatible license and distribute the combination under the non-GPL license. See: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
Apr
29
comment Commercial use for embedded system
Since you are selling this make sure you charge enough to cover the cost of consulting a lawyer that is familiar with Open Source licensing and then consult that lawyer.
Mar
14
comment Use of Unmodified AGPLv3 lib - am I AGPL too?
Are the only users of your application (either web or desktop) employees of your company?
Feb
14
comment License for my Software
Are you a regular "W-2" employee, a 1099 contractor, or a contract employee via a third party. This will impact the answer. Are you an exempt or non-exempt employee?
Dec
9
comment Does a GPL Bison grammar infect my application?
@MichaelT Yes but if he means that the grammar itself is covered by the GPL (e.g. it was taken from a GPL program) then the GPL of the grammar will probably make his program a derived work. Clarification of the actual question is needed.
Dec
9
comment Does a GPL Bison grammar infect my application?
Please clarify. Do you mean the grammar (i.e. the input to Bison) is GPL or are you concerned about using Bison because it it GPL?
Dec
3
comment How do I comply to GPL in case of Appliance?
You are correct, that is why I would advocate using FreeBSD or other BSD and/or Apache licensed software on appliances.
Oct
18
comment TotalPhase Aardvark driver's GPL license
Not quite true. You can statically link to the LGPL library as long as you provide unlinked object files that can be used to rebuild the application with a modified version of the LGPL library. (see LGPL Version 3, section 4d0.)
Sep
3
comment Releasing open-source software including Apache2 and LGPL libraries?
You probably should include a mention in your Notice file (or equivalent) of the included libraries and the copyrights for them. (e.g. this software includes X, copyright <date>, <owner name>, licensed under the Apache License, for details see <other file>). Even if it is not strictly legally required, it is a nice thing to do.