New answers tagged

0

Reading the WordNet license, I do not see a copyleft condition. It is more like the MIT license actually. This is a hard question to answer in general. There are two issues at hand here. Firstly, it is possible that the format of a data file is copyrighted (not always the case of course), so that code reading the data file might be considered derivative ...


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 (ยง29 UrhG). The work only enters the Gemeinfreiheit (~public domain) 70 years after your death. You can however license Verwertungsrechte (economic ...


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 ...


0

The text of the MIT licence is as follows (with the disclaimer elided as not relevant): Copyright (c) {year} {copyright holders} 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 ...


0

The MIT license gives them a royalty free license to copy and distribute your copyrighted code, so long as they comply with the terms of the license (e.g. Including the license in their own release) So literally copy pasting your code to make a website, and then find/replacing your name/details with their name/details is fine. What would not be allowed is ...


1

The thing that they did wrong is to claim copyright for their modified site. Whatever the license is, you have the copyright for everything you have written. If the only changes they made were changing your name for theirs, that is not something that creates copyright at all, so in that case you would still be the sole copyright holder. And if they removed ...


0

It's not your website, it's theirs. They built it from your code. Yes, the code is yours, but you granted permission for anybody to freely do that, with minimal conditions. They only have to include the same license and acknowledge the original copyright(s) in their own license. You allowed this when you licensed your work. You may change or remove the ...


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 ...


1

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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included