9

Yes, it is legal for Steam to disable content on your PC because when you downloaded the Demo for the game "Observer", you "clicked through" and agreed to either a TOS (Terms of Service) and/or a EULA (End User License Agreement) which was a legally binding contract. That contract stated the terms of use of the demo and when Steam can ...


4

As the copyright holder you are free to license your work however you want. The fact that you have licensed your work under a CC license to one group does not prevent you from licensing it to someone else under a different license with different terms. This is true even if the CC license could apply to this other person. The CC license doesn't restrict what ...


4

All Licenses are granted in the shape of contracts. Contracts contain clauses that allow or disallow their transferability. The typical way a License for a software is obtained is to buy a key that acts as proof of purchase, and then agreeing to an EULA. For example the Win10 one. very typical clauses from the Win10 EULA explicitly forbid to transfer of the ...


3

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. This advice may be materially inaccurate. What does redistribution mean? Redistribution means you have somehow caused the software to make its way to another person. Things that probably count as distribution: Placing the file on a public website. Printing the binary in hex onto paper and giving that paper to someone else. ...


2

It will be infringement by issue of a copy to the public, contrary to s.18 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. It seems clear that the book has not previously been put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent of the copyright owner. Hence by issuing the copy to the public you are infringing the copyright in it. Copyright law IS set up to ...


2

Nominative Use A person or business may, with no permission or license, make use of a trademark of a different owner to identify the product of the other owner. This is called nominative use or nominative fair use of the trade mark, so called because it is using the trademark as a name for the product or service with which it is associated. Comparative ...


2

I assume this is a legal question and not a technical question. If you create sound files using some program, you hold copyright in that content to the extent that it is not an unpermitted derivative work (e.g. you can't feed a novel into a synthesis program and create an audio book). It doesn't matter which operating system or program you are using. There ...


2

If you want a set of files to be compliant with SPDX, you must follow the SPDX Specification. This requires that certain elements are present, and permits others. It requires that the file have certain properties, for example (spec item 1.7.1) that it must be human-readable. If you do not comply with the specification, what you have is not an SPDX document. ...


2

First off: Legally, everything is copyrighted anyway. Licensing is not at all necessary. Hence, even if a court would disagree with # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0, that would just make it closed source. Having said that, the law generally doesn't bother with trivialities such as "file headers". Any commonly accepted way to state the ...


1

We cannot advise what you should do. But we can indicate some aspects of the relevant law. The particular license that a developer grants is not as important as who holds the copyright, and the terms of the contract between developer and client, which may include specifying the license. Let us call the developer D, and the client C. D will hold the initial ...


1

Musical compositions can be, and if recent almost always are, protected by copyright. This is separate from the copyright on a recording of a performance of the work. If you reuse a musical passage, the new work may be a derivative work, that is a work based on an earlier work. Or an extended musical quotation could be considered to be copyright infringement....


1

Presumably you are referring to this clause: You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; There is no magic legal incantation here. Just add a line in the header comment saying something like Modified from release 1.2.3 by Deadly (deadly@wibble.com). Having said that, if you are planning to submit a ...


1

The original work is certainly in the public domain in the US. It is also in the public domain in any country with a copyright term of Life+100 or shorter. According to this Wikipedia article that includes all known countries. From the description in the question, the 1974 edition added nothing new to the work. In the US and the UK, it would not have any ...


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