Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*"
Favorites infavorites:mine
Status closed:yes
Types is:question
Exclude -[tag]
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options answers only user 6644

Questions about the GNU General Public License

a library under a given license, it would be inappropriate to not follow the terms of that license yourself in that distribution. So, if you created an app that uses your GPL library, it would be … inappropriate to use anything other than the GPL for that app itself. Not doing so would essentially violate a demand you are placing on yourself. And it violates the spirit of the GPL that you licensed …
answered Jun 18 '17 by whatsisname
This is silly. Your question basically amounts to: "How can I distribute a copyrighted work to someone, but to do so in a way that I can convince myself that I'm not distributing it, by calling it som …
answered Aug 1 '17 by whatsisname
If the GPL library is not integral to the program, and is only e.g. a plug-in for some extra small feature, or if it performs a key function but is one option of several others, selectable by the … user, then what you are proposing can be ok. Otherwise, if your program must have the GPL present in order to work, it is a derivative work and you must abide by the terms of the GPL. The fact you are …
answered Mar 18 '18 by whatsisname
Insert normal lawyeresqe disclaimer here. With that out of the way, your current employer would have a case against you. The GPL, or any copyright license for that matter, comes into play only when … the work is redistributed. As your plugins have not yet been distributed, they are not really subject to the GPL, or any other license for that matter. Until your employer authorizes the work to be …
answered Mar 21 '14 by whatsisname
You have a lot of confusion If I build a server and use GNU GPL as a license You don't use GNU GPL as a license on a server. Perhaps what you mean is "If I build a server and use GPL licensed … software on it" Then, your obligations will differ based on what you do with that server. If you sell that server to them, and they get the server with the GPL software on it, you are required to …
answered Apr 7 '17 by whatsisname
3 reasons why: According to the terms of the GPL, people accessing GitHub via the web is not considered releasing (or propagating in GPLv3 terms), and so GitHub is not required to share their … communicating "at arms-length", and thus does not make GitHub a derivative work and therefore not subject to the requirements of the GPL. Additionally, GitHub may very well not even be using the Git software …
answered Jan 25 '17 by whatsisname
You may not re-release Ffmpeg under AGPL, as doing so imposes new restrictions on distribution, which is in violation of the original GPL license the software was distributed to you by. Only the copyright holders of ffmpeg may create an AGPL licensed release. …
answered Mar 29 '16 by whatsisname
work, with both pieces completely useless without the other. In that situation, the FSF maintains it all is a single work with the Android piece also subject to the requirements of the GPL. That is the FSF's position, which to my knowledge hasn't been tested in court. Ignore at your own peril. …
answered Jan 29 '17 by whatsisname
This is covered in the GNU faq: the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code. …
answered Jan 31 '17 by whatsisname
the case of the malicious employee, the employee has no authorization to propagate the work. The company will not be 'required' to distribute their software per the GPL from then on, as it wasn't really … distributed according to the GPL in the first place. Punishing the employee or cleaning up what to do after is a question for a law firm. …
answered May 21 '15 by whatsisname
and making the sources available. Not stepping up in that circumstance is a violation of the terms of the GPL. Edit: Additionally, not bothering to distribute binaries of the libraries does not get … you off the hook. Your project is a derivative work of those libraries, and so you are responsible for providing source to the libraries whether you distribute them as binaries or not, because the GPL/copyright demands so. …
answered Oct 31 '13 by whatsisname
If Wolfram was to use link against GPL code in their software, then they would be required to distribute that resulting work per the GPL, as those are the terms of redistributing the GPL code. The … FSF makes this very clear in their FAQ: …
answered Sep 7 '14 by whatsisname
The Apache 2.0 license is compatible with the GPL v3 (but not v2): You are getting confused by the requirement that all software of the Apache … 2.0, regardless of whether the licenses are compatible or not. For other projects, where no such policy is in place, only the terms of the licenses matter, and for those situations, you can use an Apache 2.0 licensed project in your GPL v3 project, though it has to keep its Apache 2.0 license. …
answered Sep 16 '14 by whatsisname
Use of a software internally is not considered a conveyance by the GPL, so you wouldn't have to give source code to anyone. The moment you decide to distribute your software to any third party, then … you'll have to follow the terms of the (L)GPL or pony up for a commercial QT license. As for static vs dynamic linking, you can static link with an (L)GPL libray, but you must provide the means for …
answered Aug 9 '16 by whatsisname