13

This is really a tricky question (of the ask-your-lawyer kind). Since you are the author of the software, you can make your intentions clear and avoid any ambiguities by adding a "Doxygen-comments are CC-BY-SA" exception to your license, along the lines of: Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7 In addition, as a special exception, the ...


10

In general, there are three types of content on a development-oriented web page which may be covered by different licenses: The textual content itself, that is the text of the blog, The source code, The visual design (the design itself and the graphical elements, such as the logo). What I used on many sites (example) and which can be used for a blog as ...


10

A license doesn't restrict what you are allowed to do, a license gives you permission to do things that you would not be allowed to do without the license. If that code had no license, then you had no right to use it, and creating a derived work was copyright infringement. You are lucky that it is now licensed.


9

That's not what that clause is about. Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? (#GPLOutput) In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output ...


8

There are two paths you can take You provide your modifications for inclusion in the original project. You distribute your version as an alternative project. The first option has the advantage that you won't be competing with each other and that you can share the maintenance effort. On the other hand, if the copyright of the original is held by one person/...


7

Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. From the FAQ: Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made ...


6

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 ...


5

No. The GPL gives no right to re-licence the copyrighted work under a different licence.


4

Most of these questions can only be answered with confidence by a lawyer. I am not one, but I will try to give some insights. Creating scaled versions of the icons is probably fine. Copyright is awarded for the expression of creativity and it doesn't take any creativity to scale an image. Other transformations, even scaling the width and height differently, ...


4

Joshua Gay's edit looks sloppy at best: I found at least 2 clauses and a section in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode that look incompatible with any GPL. I've written a letter to the FSF asking them to clarify this matter and the properties of the edit. This is what I just got in reply, from none other than Joshua himself (nested blocks ...


3

CC-BY-NC is not a free or open source license, because it lacks one fundamental freedom: to use the work for any purpose (See the OSI Open Source Definition under “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” and the FSF Free Software Definition). The restriction to only use the work for non-commertial purposes is incompatible with free software. Also, the ...


3

I have done some searching into the subject and found this flow-chart to start with: http://creativecommons.org.au/content/licensing-flowchart.pdf Following the flow-chart, You have to consider what public-domain means in CC0: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ Essentially, once some work is CC0, no attribution is required. You can claim ...


3

Technically, if your application displays the image changed, it could be considered a derivated work, hence the author would be within his right to sue you. Creative Commons licenses are not software licenses, with differences between static or dynamic linking and such. The same way displaying a copyrighted image might be illegal even if it is not available ...


3

A pop-up is probably suitable for an image embedded in an application: CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. (source) As for what ...


3

Yes. You can put files with any license you want in GitHub. However, note that one of GitHub's terms it that you grant GitHub enough rights to allow others to fork your code using the Fork button. So you won't be able to prevent others from mirroring your content on GitHub (though you may be able to pursue people who mirror your content outside of GitHub, ...


2

To be a "derivative work", something must first be a work. Under United State law, only a creative process can create a work. An automated process cannot create a derivative work because it cannot create a work that didn't exist before. (Other than a few specific exceptions created by statute.) If you think about it, it can't be a derivative work. Say you ...


2

Generally, the term "forking" means taking some codebase and making a modified version of it. However, Github uses the term "forking" to mean "use of Github's fork feature", which simply creates an unaltered clone of a repository by use of git clone. A fork has an owner, has its own download links If you consider trivial alteration of related metadata to ...


2

Assuming that the contents of the file are the result of a sufficient creative process that they fall under copyright protection1, there are two possibilities. The files are made a physical part of your program. For example, they are processed during compilation. In that case, your program is a derived work of those files and you are bound to the ...


2

You could keep your code snippets in an online repository somewhere with its own LICENSE file, so people know how they may reuse it. You can also write your code snippets as Github Gists, and then embed them into your blog posts: since each Gist can have multiple files and you can embed them separately (as described in this SO answer), you could add a ...


2

The Creative Commons Attribution license is a "open" license. It gives you the right to use and modify the data in any way you see fit, as long as you give proper attribution to the source of the data. Migrating the data to a different database engine would be fine. For the other data sources, you need to check on a case-by-case basis if their license ...


2

Yes, you can use content released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license in a commercial application. According to the legal code and the human-readable summary, commercial use is not restricted. The only clause that may cause concern is the NoDerivs clause, which states that "if you remix, transform, or build upon the material,...


2

There are several connectors between Python and MySQL under various licenses. Here are some of the more popular ones: MySQL Connector/Python (the "official" connector) is dual-licensed the same way as MySQL itself: you can choose a commercial license or GPL-2. MySQL-python is dual-licensed under GPL and the more permissive Python 1.5.2 license (see below). ...


2

You should be reasonable when giving credits properly, so the copyright notice should be visible and easy to find, preferably in the same page that the copyrighted resource was used (but you can also link to a page that contains all the required information), in a fashion that is both visible and unambigous to humans and computers. You may satisfy the ...


1

Unless you want to forbid it, there is no harm in licensing your code under a Creative Commons license. This would, for example, allow users to include the code in Stack Exchange posts (e.g., when giving an answer on Stack Overflow). In addition, you may license all code snippets under one or more different (software) licenses, like the GPLv3. Users that ...


1

If you build something "from scratch," this doesn't apply. But if you use "Application X" as your starting point, and tweak or "take off" on it, you are likely covered by the same license, even if your end product is rather different. This is a fine point, to be covered by lawyers, but it could turn on something as simple as whether or not you downloaded ...


1

I regret to say that I think your question as asked is conflicted. If you genuinely want to maximise the ways in which people can utilise your code then you must (among other things) allow and encourage them to take that code and pretend it's theirs. If you don't want to require any kind of attribution then you must in effect disclaim authorship as well as ...


1

Do I have to release my whole game under one of these licenses if I only used these (relatively small) files in my game Yes, you do. If this is not permitted am I allowed to do this anyway if I choose not to actually release my code and only "hosted" this game, since it's a web game. For the regular GPL, this is indeed allowed, see this answer.


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