23

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 ...


23

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).


11

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: ...


7

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 ...


7

Yes. You can use BSD-licensed projects in closed-source, commercial projects. You must include the original copyright and license. From WikiPedia's BSD License page: The BSD License allows proprietary use and allows the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a ...


6

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 ...


6

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 ...


6

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 ...


6

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 ...


6

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 ...


6

1) Yes, if you put license L1 on your program P1, then P1 is licensed under L1, and that's it. However, it is possible that you are not legally allowed to use license L1. In particular, if one of your dependencies has a license L2, it may state that L1 must meet some specific conditions, or perhaps that L1 must be L2 and nothing else. When people talk about ...


6

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, ...


5

Your five points are all true. The other answer seems to be assuming you are including the older, rarely used 4 clause BSD license. If you interpret "BSD licenses" as referring to the more commonly used 3-clause or 2-clause variants of the BSD license, all five claims in the question are true. If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of ...


5

The requirements are really quite simple: Somewhere in your game or the documentation that you distribute along with it, you must mention that you use the Lwjgl library and reproduce its license text. If your game can already display credits, then that is also where you should mention Lwjgl and its license. Otherwise, if you have a file describing your game ...


4

Effectively, yes. If you create a derived work from the original project, you're bound by the existing license. You can't relicense it without releases from any (or every) copyright holder. You might ask the original author(s) if they would consider dual-licensing, e.g. like the Perl Artistic License, but putting a BSD-style license (which would allow other ...


4

It looks like ICSOpenVpn is in violation of the GPL, at least the GPL as it's interpreted by the FSF. That shouldn't concern you if you can use the project's source code without using libopenvpn.so, but otherwise I would be very wary. OpenVPN is actually developed by a for-profit company, and while they may turn a blind eye to a small open source project ...


4

Note, I am not a lawyer. When a project is dual-licensed it means that you can choose to license the work from the author under either one of the licenses. You are only bound by the one you pickā€”that is the whole point of dual licensing (though I don't understand the point of dual-licensing under the GPL and a permissive license). The original code may ...


4

BSD allows derived works that are not, as a whole, BSD-licensed. The danger here is that a new contributor (or, really, any contributor) could submit a code contribution and then later claim that his contribution was not BSD-licensed. Whether this would hold up in court probably depends a lot on the exact circumstances of the transfer -- imagine an ambiguous ...


4

You would probably have to say something to the effect of "This program uses code written by Nathan2055, which is licensed under the BSD license" and provide a link to the version of the license. However, to be safe, you're probably better off just putting the entire license in there. You don't want to get into any legal trouble over the exclusion of a ...


4

No, you do not have to purchase a license to keep using your existing version of ServiceStack (version 3) once a commercial version 4 is released. Yes, you can still use existing versions of ServiceStack under the permissive BSD licenses with which they were released. No, it is not illegal to fork Version 3 of SS (and maintain that fork), because the license ...


4

Adding a license file and the license header to each source file should be okay though I would add my full name to the Copyright notice.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible