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)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options user 8434

Questions about the implementation of software licenses on software. If you intend to ask something about free or opensource software, please check if **Opensource.SE** (https://opensource.stackexchange.com) would not be more appropriate for your question than this site. See the full description for more information about which questions are on topic.

10
votes
Eh, that wouldn't work. The reason that the GPL works is precisely because it is transitive (viral). To show how your scheme is defeated: I set up a shell company X. I release my project to X as per …
answered Feb 13 '12 by MSalters
0
votes
The proper solution is cleanroom reverse engineering. Copyright applies to lines of code, not ideas. If you therefore have one person extract the idea from the original code and write it down, and ano …
answered Jan 26 '12 by MSalters
6
votes
The legal assumption is that every file is copyrighted. You can just describe in your license what's covered. Anyone who doesn't read the license but just the sourcefile will have a subset of the righ …
answered May 28 '12 by MSalters
0
votes
Yes, this violates the license. The SDK doesn't spell out the GPL by name, but there's no doubt that the GPL is one of those Excluded Licenses. Hence, the SDK specifically bans you from distributing D …
answered Dec 18 '14 by MSalters
7
votes
Since the program is Open Source, anyone can take your Linux code and port it to Windows and Mac OSX. Therefore you're really only selling the compiling, distributing, support (etc...) services, and t …
answered Feb 13 '12 by MSalters
2
votes
What does he mean, "cannot be resold"? There are two interpretations, an economical one and a legal one. Under the legal interpretation, if your software is under the GPL license, other people are e …
answered Sep 16 '11 by MSalters
3
votes
Yes. The other answers use far too much text explaining opinions on whether you should or not, but those opinions are not that relevant to the question. The fact is that you will have a new work on …
answered Oct 20 '14 by MSalters
1
vote
The price you charge (0$) is an economic consideration, not (directly*) a legal one. That means you don't need a special kind of license. A normal EULA will suffice. * When it does matter in legal ma …
answered Jan 16 '12 by MSalters
0
votes
You avoid a GPL violation by simply adhering to the GPL license terms. From what you describe (your source is available, license terms are still GPLv2, source acknowledged) you've done enough. You do …
answered Feb 5 '13 by MSalters
1
vote
These files legally form a database, which means many jurisdictions it's treated not as a copyrightable work but subject to other kinds of protection. In particular, such jurisdictions will consider t …
answered Oct 1 '12 by MSalters
4
votes
(Based on the 8th comment to the question) If you want your name to remain on all copies and derivative versions, the BSD license is sufficient. BSD in fact requires exactly that, nothing less, nothi …
answered May 13 '14 by MSalters
0
votes
One method, not mentioned so far, is to announce you're open to commercial deals. If people think you're earning money from the project (even if it's not from sales) they'll be more convinced to belie …
answered Jun 30 '11 by MSalters
3
votes
TL;DR: The FSF doesn't make a distinction between process and program, suggesting restrictions on your program which only apply to the resulting process. The GPL works fundamentally via copyright. In …
answered Mar 11 '14 by MSalters
20
votes
There's a variant of the GPLv3 called the "Affero GPL v3". To quote gnu.org, The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requ …
answered Jan 23 '12 by MSalters
1
vote
For legal purposes, JS minifiers can be treated as compilers. They take readable input and produce logically equivalent, but more efficient output. It follows that using a JS minifier on LGPL sources …
answered Mar 13 '12 by MSalters

15 30 50 per page