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 ...


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. ...


21

Under the Berne Convention, a copyright notice is not required at all, although using one is good practice. Using one usually eliminates the claimed status of "innocent infringement", which, if found true by a court, greatly reduces damage awards. It is usual to place such notices at or near the start of a work. That is where people tend to look for them, ...


20

Since the effective date of the US 1976 Copyright act, a copyright notice is not required at all on works published in the US, nor is it required on works published in any other country that adheres to the Berne Convention (which is adhered to by almsot every country in the world at this time). A copyright notice, if present, may specify a pseudonym, a ...


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 ...


17

Section 4, Definition 4 Covered Entity, emphasis added: The term "covered entity" means a device manufacturer, a software manufacturer, an electronic communication service, a remote computing service, a provider of wire or electronic communication service, a provider of a remote computing service, or any person who provides a product or method to ...


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 ...


12

The underlying text(s) may be subject to copyright protection, but the individual words are not -- they are usually independently existing words of the language (there are invented words like "chrowl" which I have never seen appearing in a word frequency list). A frequency count is the simply a factual report about language use in a corpus. Even in ...


10

Copyright is held by (natural or legal) persons, not by names. A person continues to own their property when they change their name, including intellectual property such as copyrights. This is a bit jurisdiction-dependent, but even anonymous works are copyright-protected! The names in a copyright notice are best understood as a reminder that someone holds ...


8

Similar to this question and this one, the Uniform Commercial Code requires that exclusion of warranty be conspicuous. While it does not specify the manner in which text should be made conspicuous, putting it in all caps certainly has that effect if the surrounding text is in sentence case. The meaning is that all products come with implied warranties of ...


8

If it reaches court, it will come down to whether she developed it in connection with the work she was employed to do, or whether it was something completely different. I remember reading about case-law being established by an engineer working for the National Coal Board, who developed and patented a machine for peeling onions in his spare time. The NCB ...


8

The general idea of such an app is not subject to copyright protection. Ideas never are protected by copyright. So creating an app based on the functionality of a fictional app would not be a copyright violation. The logo might, if it is original enough, be protected by copyright. Any or all of the "name, the logo and the color scheme" might well be subject ...


8

Data is not copyrightable, but databases (structured, organized data) might be. This depends on the jurisdiction, e.g. database rights are recognized in the EU. Whereas copyright protects creative expression, database rights protect the effort that went into collecting and organizing the data. Note that even when database rights apply, this doesn't prevent ...


7

I realize there's already an answer, but I'd like to go into more detail. There are generally two kinds of open source software licenses: permissive and copyleft (the latter sometimes called viral). Both are intended to allow people to freely use, modify, and redistribute a work while ensuring the original author gets credit. This contrasts with releasing ...


7

Using Tor is not illegal. Nor is hiding your IP address, which is - among other things - what Tor does. Going to .onion links is not illegal. What you find and interact with at those .onion sites may be illegal. See Law StackExchange Is it legal to host a directory of .onion urls? Running a Tor Relay is not illegal. That could change. Running an Exit Relay ...


7

The whole purpose of a patent is that the contents of the patent becomes public knowledge, in exchange for a time limited monopoly. Therefore you are allowed to do anything, since you are not just allowed but expected to examine the patent in order to improve on it, except that you need a license to sell or give away products implementing the patent as ...


7

Generally, such sanctions prevent certain sorts of transactions in goods and services with nationals or entities of the nation under sanction. The exact list of transactions prohibited or restricted varies. If Open source software were being provided as a service, so that the recipient paid directly for a license, or for customization or configuration work, ...


7

That “shall be used for Good, not Evil” clause is a moral category, not a legal category. From a legal perspective, it is likely meaningless and/or unenforceable. Neither Debian nor users of that software should expect any legal risk for using or distributing the software. However, software under that license will never make it into Debian because it ...


6

Both BSD and MIT require you to share "the notice" even when only distributing the software in binary form. For BSD: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.". For MIT: "The above copyright ...


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

Distribution on YouTube implicates, at least, US copyright law. Shropshire v. Canning 809 F.Supp.2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2011), Subafilms v. MGM 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) Are you infringing? Is the original work eligible for copyright? "It is undisputed that computer programs— defined in the Copyright Act as a set of statements or instructions to be used ...


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

How can you get in trouble? If they see any code you wrote for them show up in your open source project. They own the code you write on company time. Even if your code goes into an open source project owned by the company, you still don't own that code. The only way you can own it is if they directly tell you that you may put it into your open source ...


5

You don't have to, but you probably want to for a couple of reasons: It's courteous, and in the spirit of open source It's someone else's work, and you're using it. The least you can probably say is "thank you." It will also probably help you stay in the clear: since you're using software in binary form, where the notice isn't immediately ...


5

The reason for this is simple: You can’t install C or C++. C or C++ is just a programming language and C/C++ code compiles to machine code. Machine code can directly be executed by the processor (CPU) in your computer. Java, however, is normally compiled to byte-code only a Java Virtual Machine can execute. And this Java virtual machine is what you get ...


5

(IANAL, of course)  My employer tells me that EVERY professional activity belongs to the company and for EVERY activity I mentioned before I need to get written permission, That's true for software (and inventions) that may be relevant for them, but not for other professional activities. which could be withdrawn at any moment. No, not in that very ...


5

According to US law, the GPL is a license, not a contract. This means it is valid without consideration, it also means if you are in violation of the license, then you are committing copyright infringement, instead of being in breach of a contract. In Germany, the GPL is a contract. And that's fine, because German law doesn't require consideration for a ...


5

This can't be right. If I modify open source code as part of the work done, by nature of the open source license that code can not become intellectual property of the client. Certainly it can. That which is "developed or produced" would be the modifications to the pre-existing code, i.e the copyright on the derivative work so created. If the base code was ...


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.


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