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 ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


5

According to the website, the VirtualBox base package is licensed under the GPL. That means you're free to use it for any purpose. The VirtualBox Extension Pack has a more restrictive license, which is only free for personal, educational, or evaluation use.


5

You cannot do this through any established public license that I know of, but you could write your own. The model would be any educational use or non-commercial use license, such as CC NC licenses. The main challenge is defining the excluded classes of usage. That is why you should engage an attorney to draft this for you. I don't think there is any point ...


4

In Germany, there is no concept that corresponds directly to public domain. You automatically hold the Urheberrecht (~ copyright) for all creative works that you make, and it can't be given up or transferred (§29 UrhG). The work only enters the Gemeinfreiheit (~public domain) 70 years after your death. You can however license Verwertungsrechte (economic ...


4

A translation is a devivative work - the copyright owner has the exclusive right to these So, yes, translation is prima facie copyright infringement. Strictly speaking, if you translate it, it's a derivative work because you exercised creativity in making the translation; what Google translate does is not a derivative work, it's a copy because there is no ...


4

It depends on what you are selling to the enterprises. You could be selling just a licence to use the program, and retain all the rights on the source code. You could be selling the rights to the source code. For #1, the source code is yours and you can do what it pleases with it1. In fact many programs offer both an open-source licence (which usually ...


4

Per the comment, the applicable license term seems to be Licensee agrees to maintain in confidence the source code version of the Licensed Software by using at least the same physical and other security measures as Licensee uses for its own confidential technical information and documentation, but in no case less than reasonable measures. So if your own ...


4

Yes, you can fork it - but you can’t use it GitHub explain what’s a public deposit with no licence means here. If you find software that doesn’t have a license, that generally means you have no permission from the creators of the software to use, modify, or share the software. Although a code host such as GitHub may allow you to view and fork the code, this ...


3

It's possible that CAD has a separate licence from the authors of ABC that allows them to produce a closed source copy. If not, they have no right to distribute CAD. However two wrongs don't make a right, and so you don't get to violate the copyright of CAD.* Unfortunately, unless you are one of the authors of ABC, you have no standing to sue the authors of ...


2

Questions related to open-source licensing are best asked in https://opensource.stackexchange.com however: The GNU GPLv3 (being copy-left) already requires what you are wanting to be required. Conveying Modified Source Versions. You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source ...


2

You are looking for something beyond the scope of general public licenses such as the CC licenses, so you either have to give up on some (most) of your demands, or else hire an attorney to write a license. Copyright law says that the code is your intellectual property, so you don't have to say that but you have to be careful in how you grant others ...


2

Word and Excel files are stored in Open Office XML format1 As the name suggests, this is an open format - specifically, it’s a bunch of zipped XML text files. Change the extension of any office file to .xml and you can open them with any zip program. 1Since 2007. However, that begs the question ... Copyright law allows reverse engineering, particularly when ...


2

If I understand correctly, you know that X is using your software thanks to your inside knowledge as an employee of B. As a rule it is not permitted for you to reveal this information because it is owned by B. Its also a little tendentious to claim that X is using your software, since it is only doing so as a result of its incorporation by B. It would be ...


2

IANAL, just a programmer with an interest in legal rules. Due to the very permissive nature of the MIT license, no, it does not appear that anything illegal has been done. Specifically, the section to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell ...


2

The scope of the license is a bit murky, since it just refers to "this software". The intent of the license author is not exactly relevant, because the license author isn't the person with the right to permit copying, the author of the content is. When a content-creator make a vague reference to a canned license, it is not at all clear what they wanted to ...


2

Don't collect or process personal data Many (though of course not all) websites can easily be run without collecting or otherwise processing any personal data. The position of GDPR is that if you are not able to fulfil the basic, simplest core conditions for processing personal data (understanding what you're processing and why and why it's allowed, ...


2

if my former employer finds out that I've done this, do they have any grounds for suing me? It depends on whether your performance in the side project amounts to disclosing company A's trade secrets or other proprietary information. If experience in this context simply means the proficiency you attained in the third-party API, the former employer has no ...


2

"Say the Debian Project were to distribute jshint". That's distribution, not use. The distinction matters. This line is appended to the MIT license, which starts by enumerating different rights including both "use" and "distribute". Hence it's reasonable to assume that the term "used" in both clauses means the same. In other words, your assumption that "...


2

If you want a software license tailored to specific desires, you have to hire an attorney, talk about that you do and don't want, and get the attorney to write up a license. You especially need to hire an attorney, if you are concerned over thing that you've heard being a bad idea. It may be that you're getting stuck because of your third desideratume: "...


2

You don’t need a licence to use your own IP It’s yours, do what you like with it. If you choose to licence your IP to particular people or the world at large they must follow the licence(s) you grant irrespective of what you or anyone else does.


2

If software is licensed under the Apache license, then you can use that software under open source terms. Part of the Apache license specifically grants you a patent license for the software. However, if you attempt to sue anyone, alleging that the software is infringing on patents that you own, the patent license you received is automatically revoked. The ...


2

Unless you are a copyright holder of ABC you have no rights to CAD whatsoever. You have no permission to copy their code, you have no standing to sue, and what you are planning can get you into deep legal trouble. If you are a copyright holder of ABC you can sue them. You still have no rights to the portions of CAD that are not copies of your code. That’s in ...


2

Terms of service are contracts, where you grant a person a right in exchange for them doing something. If they have agreed but violate the terms, you may have legal recourse to sue them; or you can "undo" their action, e.g. you can delete porn that they uploaded. There are certain limitations on your recourse, for example you cannot fine a user $...


2

Note that even when database rights apply, this doesn't prevent someone else from performing the same analysis and coming up with an equivalent database. I think Anon gives good advice on this question, the only change I would make is in reference to the above. It is in the nature of copyright (unlike patent) that independent creation cannot be an ...


2

Yes. There definitely lies copyright on any database established in the EU. A word frequency list is a database, and has a 15 year sui generis copyright. This also includes derivative works. lightly remixing the wordlist counts as a derivative work, and falls under copyright protection. The answer provided by "user6726" is incomplete. While ...


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