Hot answers tagged

13

Algorithms are not subject to copyright. A particular implementation can be copyrighted, but an algorithm itself can't be copyrighted. Someone re-implementing the algorithm with their own code has done nothing to give you copyright claims against their work, and is not bound by any software license you use. That's what patents are for.


9

Since licensing can only be done by the copyright holder, you generally need individual permission from each copyright holder to change the license of their code. (If the project is being re-licensed to the GPL from a compatible license, then no re-licensing from the copyright holder is necessary; however, versions 2 and 3 of the GPL are not compatible with ...


6

They are GPL licensed. Each WordPress file contains either a licence.txt or readme.txt file that clearly states they are GPLv2 or higher. As such they are free to redistribute the files as they wish. Disclaimer: We also own a website that distributes GPL licenced WordPress software at https://www.gplvault.com and only accept files that are 100% GPL. The ...


6

There are now 2 works. An original, abandoned work, and a new, derivative work. The original creator owns the copyright over the original, and the new person owns copyright over the derivative he created. In your scenario, it will be the new creator, who will have the right to sue, if the gpl of the new work has been infringed


5

This seems to fall under "Installation Information" according to the GPL v3 license. "Installation information" doesn't need to be provided as source code, but it must be provided in such a way that others can take the source code, modify it, and make it work with the "Installation Information" that is provided.


5

The GPL does not forbid you from charging money for software, nor does it require you to provide source code to the general public. What the GPL requires is that your software be free software, with "free" used in the sense of "free speech" rather than the sense of "free beer." According to the Free Software Foundation (authors of the GPL), the right of ...


4

If your own software includes software covered by the GPLv2 (for example by copying source code, or by linking dynamically) then your own software is also covered by the GPLv2, and you will have to provide the source code. This is called a "work based on the Program" on the GPLv2. In this case, however, it seems that your own software does not include ...


4

The GPL that covers the OpenJDK certainly allows you to write and distribute your own Java implementation. On that point, your reading is absolutely correct. However, if that implementation is a derivative work of the OpenJDK (as it appears to be even when you copy only APIs), then the GPL requires you to make your derivative implementation available under ...


4

The Free Software Foundation considers that the Apache 2.0 license is compatible with the GPL 3.0: This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. But not compatible with the GPL 2.0, though: Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. ...


4

No. The GPL does not say 'pretend to make source code available'. The means by which the source code is made available must be equivalent to the means by which the compiled program is made available. Relevant clauses include (in version 3 of the GPL) clause 6, which says: You may [distribute your program in object form] provided that you also convey ...


4

If an infringement suit is filed, the plaintiff(s) would have rights of discovery. They could subpoena the source code in such a case for comparison. They could take the depositions of EvilCorp's developers and ask them about the libraries that they used. There might well be other ways to achieve the same effect.


4

My understanding is that here "derived from the program" means "created by modifying the source code of the program" and not "created by running the program". Certainly that is the way all users that I have heard of treat the matter. Note that a commercial program, such as a word processor, will be fully protected by copyright, but the maker does not claim ...


3

There's two possibilities here. 1. The themes are actually under the GPL If this is actually the case, then you can use the projects/plugins/themes commercially, as long as you follow the rest of the terms of the licence. 2. The themes aren't under the GPL Then no. The media was licensed wrongfully. All a copyright holder needs to do is tell you, and ...


3

As far as I can tell, whenever GitHub redistributes code, it adheres to all of the requirements of the GPL/BSD etc. For example, it never gives away code without including the license text, and it doesn't claim to add unpermitted restrictions to the code. The section you're concerned about is this: That means you're giving us the right to do things like ...


3

A person that fails to comply with a copyright licence does not have a licence to use the copyrighted material. The owner of the copyright can take all the normal actions for copyright violation including seeking an injunction to stop the breach and/or suing for damages. Additionally, if the breach constitutes criminal activity, then the state can enforce ...


3

Your understanding of the GPL is a bit off. GPLed code doesn't generally force you to GPL the output of the program, but that's just because the output of the program is normally not a derivative work of the program. For instance, if you write a novel in Emacs, your novel is an entirely original work. The fact that you used Emacs as a tool doesn't mean that ...


3

There is no loophole because a work released in object code form only — without the Corresponding Source — is not released under GPLv3, even if you say it is. GPLv3 only requires them to also provide whatever source came with it False. Providing the Corresponding Source is compulsory (§6 as pointed by @cHao). If they do not have access to it, it means ...


3

The GPL doesn’t require you to distribute the software to anyone. The only requirement to distribute something is that if you do distribute the software to someone as a binary, you must also distribute the source code to them at no additional charge. The focus of the GPL is ensuring freedom for people who have copies of the software, not ensuring that the ...


3

I've answered this in the context of US patent law, but similar principles apply elsewhere in the world. As stated in 35 USC 271, "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the ...


3

The only issue relevant to your age is the (ir)revocability of the license. GPLv3 purports to be an irrevocable license. To be really irrevocable, the license would need to grant certain rights in exchange for something of value, that is, you need a license that passes muster as a contract. Copyright licenses are typically treated as contracts, but it is not ...


3

The Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the Gnu General Public License. You can demand the source code they used to build the kernel, but the license doesn't guarantee that you can change and replace any code. That caused some controversy, so the Free Software Foundation came up with version 3, which would require the company to allow users to ...


3

Yes you can. What you do is called mere aggregation. Your app and the GPL container run isolated and do not share memory space: they are clearly separate programs vs parts of one program, so your app does not get infected by GPL.


2

If you sign over the copyright of a piece of code, then under US copyright law you have essentially lost any authority over the code and any inherent right to use it. It is exactly as if a company employee had written it; for at least 35 years, you lose any and all rights of authorship. You may not use the code except under license from the assignee; in ...


2

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work ... at what point does the old author cease to retain copyright/the license ceases to hold? See 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) as an example of domestic law: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting ...


2

As far as I know, you are stuck unless you can somehow track the pieces of code written by every single developer, and remove those written by those you can't reach. For obvious reasons, this is seldom doable.


2

The GPL is a copyright license that belongs to a category of license commonly called "copyleft" licenses. The defining characteristic of a copyleft license is that a work derived from a copyleft-licensed work must be licensed under that copyleft license as a whole. For the GPL, if your work includes a single piece that is licensed under the GPL, then the ...


2

Since the claims seem to be that (1) Google's intention was to infect phones with malware to extort money from its users and (2) Google is required by law to allow you to do whatever you want, I will save you some money and say that you probably don't have a snowball's chance in hell. You haven't provided a jurisdiction, but I am still fairly confident in ...


2

The GPL does require you to keep any existing copyright notices: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty [...] The GPL also recommends adding a notice to each file: ...


2

Ok here is my go at answering my own question: (see comments above & below for links) Depending on what you want to do, GPL can be a bit complicated, with multiple versions, version numbers, and added exceptions over the years. it can be a headache. However, for this purposes of app development incorporating GPL/LGPL libraries, it is fairly ...


2

Just because newer versions of jQuery are available under one license doesn't indicate what license(s) older versions are available under. With permission of all copyright holders, the license can be modified. However, it does require the permission of all copyright holders. You would have to see the license terms distributed with jQuery 1.2.1 to see what ...


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