Hot answers tagged

45

You need to know two things about the GPL: The GPL is a license which requires that when you distribute binaries, you distribute the source code with them (binaries being the things you can directly run) The GPL is viral - any project using something licensed under the GPL must also be licensed under the GPL The easiest way to comply with the first point ...


28

It depends on exactly how you are "using" the GPL code. If you have copied and modified the source code then you can only distribute copies under the GPL. If you have invoked a GPL program as a separate process so that your code can use its output then you can distribute your program without the source code, as long as you comply with the terms of ...


22

No. GPL works are copyrighted (as are most creative works basically everywhere in the world, as soon as they're created, whether or not the author does anything about it), and copyright is what gives the GPL "teeth". Without copyright, you would generally be able to duplicate and distribute programs without any kind of license or permission from the author. ...


19

GPL does not purport that there is no copyright in a work to which the license applies: the works are still in copyright. It relies on the notion of copyright (which it redefines to include "similar things") on order to identify what rights are granted (you have the right to do things that would be copyright infringement, if you did those acts without ...


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.


13

What you have been told is incorrect. You are in no way required to release your product under an open source license, nor to publish it in any form. If you do "convey" a work that is under the GPL, or a modified version of a work under the GPL, then you must provide the source code, and include the GPL license text, and for a modified version, ...


12

In practice, it is abundantly clear to which entity the “Free Software Foundation” refers, even if the FSF were to change its name, even if there are unaffiliated organizations with the same name. Version 3 of the GPL also contains a link to the FSF website, making it clear which organization this referred to in 2007 when the license text was published. If ...


11

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

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. ...


6

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 ...


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


6

The Gnu General Public License text specifically refers to versions published by the Free Software Foundation when availing yourself of the “or any later version” option: If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions ...


6

Yes, commercial use is allowed for the AGPLv3 license. You can charge for your use of the software so long as you provide a way for the public to download the source code in its entirety.


6

For your case specifically, the API for that library is licensed under MIT, not GPL. MIT is non-viral, so as long as you only call into the API for that library, you do not need to make your code open-source.


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

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 ...


5

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 ...


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 ...


5

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.


5

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 ...


4

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 ...


4

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 ...


4

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 ...


4

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

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: ...


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

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 ...


3

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, then the GPL requires you to make your derivative implementation available under the GPL as well, per the GPL's copyleft rules. If ...


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