A friend of mine once pointed out that licenses tell you what the license authors were scared of.
If you're scared of having your name dragged through the mud, then the BSD license will seem better. If you're scared of having your software put into a proprietary piece of software, then the GPL will seem better. Whatever the license, the author chooses it ...
Short answer is the MIT is a simpler license.
Yes in many ways I like the clause about people not being able to use your name in an unwanted way, but the reality is most people are not too concerned about that. If you are concerned about that then you are probably using the BSD license already.
Additionally the MIT License can just be copied and pasted as ...
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 ...
My understanding is that:
MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects.
TRUE (but unless there are modifications, the users can get it from the original sources also.
BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects.
FALSE MIT license allows for distribution without contribution credits; BSD doesn't.
"It's okay." Removing the now redundant language due to the effects of the Berne convention is good.
FSF has this to say:
... However, to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license for their own works.
Which basically means that the terminology is just vague enough that ...
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 ...
Did you read the license? Because it's pretty short and I think easy to understand. Unless your lawyer tells you otherwise, I'd say that yes, you can use the code, but you have to put their notice & disclaimer in your documentation (about box, whatever).
The BSD licenses explicitly disclaims any warranty, which is not the case with public domain. For this reason alone, using the BSD license instead of releasing something as public domain is highly recommended.
In addition, some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of releasing your work into the public domain, i.e. relinquishing your copyright!
The best way to get a definitive answer is to ask them. But I will give you my interpretation anyhow.
Basically, they cannot revoke the license they granted you on the existing code. And from my reading of the message you linked to, they expect to keep the existing BSD based code available but will not be doing any work on it.
So to take your questions:
You need to follow the terms of the license(s).1
1Honestly, that's it.
For the licenses you cite (BSD, MIT) there is nothing within the license terms that say you must use the entire module. In fact, both of those licenses give you explicit permission to do what you're suggesting.
including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, ...
Exhibit A: BSD license text
Exhibit B: MIT license text
First off, you really ought to read both of those licenses. Really, go on now, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read both.
What you should immediately notice is just how similar the two licenses are. Really, they are. Basically, they both state "retain the copyright notice" and "retain ...
That's an interesting question. Disclaimer: IANAL.
The quoted fragment means the BSD licensed code can be used in a project which is licensed GPL.
On the other hand, you're still the copyright holder of your code. The license of original code cannot be changed without your permission. Also BSD license explicitly requires:
Redistributions of source ...
IMO (3) and (4) are onerous. After all, do you really want an email for every download? Do you want to oblige distributors to create custom FTP/HTTP servers that send an email for every download? Do the other copyright holders want to receive these notifications? If I made an enhancement and distributed the result I'd be signing up for such ...
In my experience, no, you don't "re-license" something because you don't own the copyright. You only have a license from the original authors.
What you can do is use the copyrighted work in a derived work, but you have to follow the terms of the license, which in the case of BSD/MIT, says that you have to preserve the copyright notice and license on the ...
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 ...
Setting aside the issue of the practicality of this one, roll-your-own licenses are a bad idea for everyone involved. (Apart from lawyers ...)
Unless you have legal training, you should not attempt to invent your own licenses. You may think you know what those words mean, but when interpreted by a law court, they may mean something different to what you ...
This portion of the GPLv2 seems to address your situation:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same ...
The GPL does not explicitly make any statement about the licensing of code contributed code back to the project. It might be inferred that any contribution is covered by the GPL as it could be considered a derived work and thus must be licensed under the GPL but it is possible that the contribution is already licensed under an incompatible license and ...
The usual IANAL applies etc. etc.
It looks to me as if the author tried to turn the BSD license into a viral license by demanding that the original license terms be unchanged for this and any derived work.
While this is a perfectly viable idea, I doubt it would stand up in court under all circumstances - the various versions of GPL are quite long, and ...
Yes, it's possible to link your BSD project and the GPL project. However, it means you must release the combined version as GPL.
Skim over FSF's GPL compatible licenses and you'll see a range of commentary about how well a particular license can fold into the GPL. And yes, by compatible, what FSF really means is how easily can you combine two works and ...
I'm not a lawyer; this answer comes out of my (US-centric) understanding of basic licensing and copyright fundamentals. I'll address some basic US copyright law and case law in an attempt to shed some light on the topic, but don't take anything below as definitive (except the last two sentences -- if you want a tl;dr, read those).
Lamson's license is very ...
One does not simply "guard against" illegal contributions.
You never accept blindly a contribution, and should have a process to vet contributions (including yours) for several kinds of troubles:
unit tests (automated)
backdoors and security flaws (static analysis might help, other tools exist)
code smells (automated)
poor code logic (peer review, "enough ...
To answer your questions:
Is this the right approach? Maybe, if your changes are generally useful I would attempt to contribute to the project instead of forking.
Can I fork this project? Yes. The BSD license allows you to fork it. You don't need to ask permission to fork.
How to track changes...? Add your name to the copyright notice for the files you ...
The BSD license is basically:
a couple of clauses that instruct you to reproduce the copyright information and forbid you to claim the original authors endorse your modifications
I agree it's a little weird that this distribution doesn't contain the license. The download doesn't even include a copyright notice (it just ...
IANAL so all this is just my point of view as a software developer who gone through similar questions as well:
1.) Should I put the licensing information in the header of every file?
Yes, you can do so. This ensures easily that it's visible on top of each file who wrote the code in there and under which terms it is available. Such a per-file-method is ...
Public Domain is region specific. From here:
There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public ...
In theory it should be fine.
The BSD license is a Permissive free software license which means it doesn't insist on anything using it being shared in the same way.
The BSD license only says that redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted (subject to certain constraints) but doesn't mandate how that should be other than that the ...
You have several versions of the BSD license. It's one of the simplest licenses, so you should simply read it.
Here is the "longest one":
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
Redistributions of ...