57

You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it ...


46

Yes. The license itself is really just one sentence long, and states explicitly that this is allowed. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, ...


40

The Apache 2.0 license purports to be irrevocable, but it also presupposes that the supposed licensor has the right to grant permission to copy. In this case, that is untrue, so there never was a proper license and nothing to revoke (the copyright owner grants permission in the form of "a license" which is a legal abstraction, that normally is specified in ...


37

Provided you are in one of the 170+ countries signatory to the Berne Convention (the current 10 non-signatories are, exhaustively: Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan), then copyright comes into existence at the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium, not when it is published. The initial ...


36

The system operates on "innocent until proven guilty" If you watch or record live television or you download or watch programmes on BBC iPlayer (live, catch up, or on demand), you must have a TV licence. You do not have to let TV Licensing officers into your home unless they have a warrant, per Section 366 of the Communications Act 2003. They will ...


25

Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text "conspicuous" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. (2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the ...


25

Sorry Matthew, that is wrong. But lets start with the Ops statement "In the UK you have to state that you don't have a TV license and sign a declaration to that effect every 2 years (unless you then get a license)." You do not have to state this at all. You are under NO legal obligation to reply to TVLA's letters. All that will happen is they will ...


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 ...


18

This is a fairly complex question and it depends heavily on what jurisdictions are involved. In the US software development by regular employees will typically be classified as "work for hire" and the copyright will belong to the employer. For contractors the situation is more complex and you haven't done yourself any favors by not having written agreements ...


16

Short Answer Based on the facts you supplied, it seems the author's request for removal might be unenforceable. Explanation Section 2.a.1. of the license declares the license is irrevocable. [Emphasis added]: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-...


16

No, the musical composition itself (i.e., what you might express tangibly in sheet music) has copyright distinct from the copyright that exists on Led Zepplin's recording of the song. Your new cover will still be a derivative work of the musical composition. When you record a cover of a copyrighted song, you must get permission from the composer (or current ...


16

You cannot define "revenue" as profits. Indeed, you probably can't even deduct cost of goods sold. Revenue is the amount of money that a company brings in from selling goods and services (investment income is arguably more ambiguous, and loan proceeds would clearly not be revenue). In the absence of other indications, a court would probably look the ...


16

company does not warrant that use of the Software will operate uninterrupted or error free. A court will not find that statement to be ambiguous or contradictory. Mere grammatical differences will not void a contract. See Typing errors in legal contract I have recently encountered the following perl of perspicuous and immaculate syntax: Correct ...


14

The License is not valid in the first place, as the developer did not have the right to attach the license to his work; the company does. If someone uses the developer's work, and the company sues them for copyright infringement, the license will not protect that person, since the license isn't enforceable. To prove this in court, the company will likely ...


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

Since use cannot operate in any sense, shall the whole sentence be annuled and the license treated as if without it? No. The statement is intelligible enough for a reasonable person would grasp the substance thereof; namely, that the company cannot be held liable for software interruptions or bugs. Therefore, the sentence is not to be voided or stricken. ...


12

(2019 update See comments for my exchange with @benrg updating this 2015 answer. In particular, they do a fair job of representing a much less "paranoid" take on MS's take on users' privacy than my highly skeptical one. Also, the links in the answer below are to the latest versions of the respective documents. Archive.org has 2015 versions at 2015 ...


12

You're not going to find an OSI-approved or FSF-approved license that meets your needs because these licenses comply with the OSI definition or FSF definition of open-source software, and your requirements don't. Looking at your requirements, it looks like you want a license where users can modify the software and use it for private use, but cannot use it ...


12

Most of the works available on Libgen are illegal: they have infringed copyright by putting copies there. Any copying of a protected work, done without permission of the copyright owner, is copyright infringement. That includes downloading from libgen.


11

In legal terms, the "innocent until proven guilty" principle still holds. However, the dirty tactics utilised by licensing officers try all sorts of underhand tricks to disregard "innocent until proven guilty". The general advice is that you should not engage with such licensing officers in any way, unless they actually have a search ...


10

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 ...


10

The major differences: MIT has a general "deal in the Software without restriction" clause, where Boost enumerates the things a user is permitted to do. For the sorts of things the average user is likely to want to use the software for, there may not be any practical difference, but the MIT license is considerably broader. A copy of the Boost license does ...


10

Copyright law (17 USC 117) specifically allows this: it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program if you are the owner of a copy of the computer program, provided: (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and ...


10

Consideration Consideration is essential on both sides of every simple common law contract (civil law is different). It is the quid pro quo or "something for something" that is the essence of a contract - it's what turns an unenforcable agreement into a contract. A formal contract supported by a deed does not need consideration. The rules of consideration ...


9

As long as you own the copyright to the works, you can even publish the source code itself under two different licenses, which can be radically different. For example, MySQL is licensed under both a commercial and an open-source license. Given that you can publish a single piece of work as multiple licenses, it is your choice which one you wish to grant to ...


9

Students of the English legal system will all have heard of Alfred Denning (later Lord Denning), a prominent English judge in the twentieth century who really took issue with contract terms that purported to exclude liability under every circumstance. In a famous case in 1956, (J Spurling Ltd v. Bradshaw), Lord Denning came up with his famous "red hand rule"...


9

I can't answer for the Indonesian law specifically. But in general, under most international copyright schemes, a translation is considered a copyrightable work. This means that even if the original work (in this case, the Quran and Hadith) is in the public domain, derivative works based on that public domain work can still be copyrighted by their creators. ...


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