First, the standard disclaimer: IANAL but a random stranger.
I have been packaging an AGPL application(*) recently. It uses third party libraries distributed under jQuery, MIT, BSD (and some other) licenses. Here is how I have proceeded.
My main intents when I designed this were: be compliant and be fair. While the first one should be sufficient, the ...
Section 4 of the Apache License 2.0 is quite clear on what you must do when you distribute the changed file:
You must not remove the existing copyright claim (the one by 'the Best Company in the World')
You must make it clear the the file has been changed. The easiest way is to simply add your copyright after the original ones:
Modifications copyright (C) ...
Can I use them in my commercial app?
It depends on what you intend to do with the software that you produce.
Firstly, neither ASL1, GPL or LGPL make any restrictions on what you can use software to do inside your organization. The restrictions are all on code that is distributed outside of your organization.
For GPL the restriction is that if you ...
Bad news, dude.
It isn't your code. Only the owner of the code in question can relicense that code, and you are not the owner of the code in question.
You accepted the code under the terms of the GPL. You modified it, and forked it, under the terms of the GPL. You are now stuck with the terms of the GPL, and one of those terms is that you can't ...
There are well-established patterns for attributing the libraries you use. In general, you put this attribution in the same place where you'd put your copyright notice.
In a desktop application: Often there is a menu item “Help > About”, which displays a small info window with the application name, version number, copyright, and developer contact. This ...
The Apache 2.0 license is very different from the GPL license, in at least two aspects:
Under the Apache 2.0 license, you are allowed to distribute binaries without providing the source code with it. (Under the GPL, you must always provide the source code)
The GPL license carries over to the entire application. The Apache 2.0 license does not and applies ...
Commercial use is any use that is a part of revenue generating activity, that is, making money. It includes all use by for-profit organizations (companies) and use by self-employed natural persons as part of their paid work.
It has nothing to do with the environment. Using Linux to run a web shop is a commercial use and using Windows at home for watching ...
License wise, unless you are making really major changes and have a really strong opinion on the license that you want to distribute those under, you should keep to the original license of the project you fork from. The code you copied must remain under that license anyway, so using a separate license for your changes is mostly a lot of additional hassle.
Translations (both to a different natural language and to a different programming language) are considered to be Derived Works.
When creating a derived work that is so radically different from the original as a translation to a different (not closely related) programming language results in, it is actually quite hard to understand how the requirements from ...
Eric Raymond wrote a thoughtful piece about this at one time. The important point I think is
When you lose interest in a program, your last duty to it is to hand it off to a competent successor.
Basically, will you offend them? It really depends on the them. What would be good to do is to contact the developer and ask what she or he would thinks ...
If you take a look at Shutterstock's licence comparison table you notice that they pose some limitations on incorporating images into software in their Standard licence:
Incorporated into software as a background image or splash screen:
Standard -- Image may not be reproduced more than 250,000
Enhanced -- no limitation on ...
From the EPLv1.0
A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form
under its own license agreement, provided that:
a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
b) its license agreement:
i) effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all
warranties and conditions, ...
Let's clarify some terminology first. When the FSF says a license is compatible with the GPL they don't mean what many people interpret that to mean. Many interpret "compatible" to mean the two pieces of software can happily co-exist in the same application.
That's close to what the FSF means, but the copyleft provision of the GPL takes things a little ...
If you only copied ideas from the original library and no actual source code, then your library is not a derived work as far as copyrights are concerned.
Copyrights are about the actual source code, not about the ideas/concepts that are represented in that source code. To protect those ideas/concepts, you need to turn to other intellectual property laws, ...
You should be fine.
Here's a copy of the (Apache v2 license](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html)
And this is the relevant section:
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each
Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable copyright ...
You should read and understand any license that you agree to. CC licenses, like CC-BY-SA-3.0, explicitly state:
You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a ...
Unless your project has been using "Mozilla 1.1 only",
it is implicitly using "Mozilla 1.1 or higher".
Therefore, the project can be upgraded to Mozilla 2.0 (or even forked,
without the consent of the contributors).
If you want to stay with Mozilla 1.1, all you need to do
is to not mix Apache and Mozilla licensed code in the same source file.
Your project ...
From MIT :
It is a permissive license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software provided all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms.
From Apache :
Like any free software license, the Apache License allows the user of the software the freedom to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, to ...
A few criticisms I found on the mailing list:
It's too complex / hard to understand for non lawyers
The copyright notice requirements are annoying
The patent provisions make the license non free
It's worse than the previous license.
From: Henning Brauer (lists-openbsdbsws.de)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 02:58:21 CST
the point is that more and more ...
Your only route is to abandon any desires of "open source" with your software.
There are no "mainstream" or common suitable open source licenses as freedom to use for any purpose, which includes competing against you, is considered a cornerstone requirement of free and open source software.
And of course if you use any libraries you'll have to check if a ...
As long as you have written the code, and you don't work for anyone else, insert "your name" - you have the copyright as long as you don't give it to someone else. When others contribute, you can still change it later and add their names, too (or let them add their names by themselves).
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
I think you're looking for Black Duck Protex.
...solution for managing open source compliance. Protex integrates with existing development tools to automatically scan, discover and identify software origins, an integral step in the development process and essential for enforcing license compliance and corporate policy requirements.
No, the Apache license isn't a "copyleft" license. You must include the license in your stuff so that the end user knows that they are using something Apache licensed. In your read me or wherever you plan on putting your license I would include a section that says uses Apache (whatever you are using here) Licensed under Apache 2.0 (license text here). If ...
If you are releasing your software with source code under the MIT license you should have no trouble including the other packages with it as long as you comply with the various notice requirements in the licenses. If it is important, check with the copyright holders of the libraries to be sure.
If you are thinking about a binary only release you will need ...
The Apache License does not place any restrictions on software that links to a plug-in or library that is distributed under the Apache license. The LGPL on the other hand has the requirement that either the LGPL library links dynamically (and can be replaced by a user) or the entire work must be released under a GPL-compatible open-source license.
For the ...
The Apache 2.0 licence is completely unlike GPL. In particular, it says
You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
So provided you meet the conditions listed (which are generally not onerous), ...
I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues.
The title of questions (‘Can I change license?’) does not match its body (‘Is it possible to license my changes by Apache v2 license?’).
Of course, you can not change the license. Even most permissive free software licenses, such as Expat and 2-clause BSD licenses¹, do ...
The boilerplate notice for the Apache License is:
Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may
obtain a copy of the License at
Unless required by applicable law ...