Hot answers tagged

20

The C standard library is part of the C programming language, so it is a specification (written in English in some technical report). For example, the n1570 document is explaining what is malloc and how it should behave. There is also another relevant specification, the C POSIX library (which is more or less a superset of the C standard library). For ...


19

In the year 2000, Borland released the code to its InterBase database software as open source. For weird corporate politics reasons, they quickly walked it back and decided that further development of InterBase would continue as a proprietary product, as it had before, and they were able to do that. As noted above, they were the copyright holder and they ...


18

Is that possible with me as the original copyright holder (with no one having contributed changes except me)? Yes, of course. It's your code, you can do whatever you want with it. Even if I release my program as open source, I am the copyright holder after all, am I? Yes, of course. If you weren't, you wouldn't be able to release it as open source, ...


13

The primary reason is because C is the lingua franca of software, the GNU project has been around for quite some time and the GNU project and FSF, above else, value freedom of their software over any other consideration. Performance, modularity, code 'elegance', bug fixes, etc, all take a back seat to software freedom as far as the GNU project is concerned. ...


7

As the original copyright holder and no one else holding the copyright to any portions of the project, you can choose to close-source a later version. You can also choose to change the license on previously released versions. It won't stop anyone from using the version(s) under the license they received it under, though.


7

Work done on a particular operating system is not derived from it and therefore is not covered by it's license (or more properly license of any of it's components, since operating system consists of many components with different licenses). An application is derived from libraries it links to, but Android application only links libraries that come from the ...


6

If you and your two friends are all in agreement on this course of action, and the three of you created 100% of the codebase, you can change its licensing without any legal trouble. If you've accepted any outside submissions, that's when things get complicated. The outside authors may hold copyright to the code they wrote, and you're using it under the ...


6

The answer will depend on exactly what you're selling. Are you reselling copies of Ubuntu, or selling modified Ubuntu software? Then the Ubuntu software license becomes important. When developers simply use Ubuntu to make something else, we're using it as a tool just like a pencil or a calculator. And Ubuntu's GPL license doesn't apply to an independent, ...


5

Sure thing - none of the GPL licenses, including AGPL, forbids commercial activity. See http://www.affero.org/oagf.html for more information. Moreover, there are plenty of software with well established commercial ecosystem around it. MongoDB and RhodeCode what I recall from the top of my head.


5

The text you quoted is part of the preamble, it is not part of the legally binding terms and conditions. The relevant part is article 13, which states that you have to make the source code available to everybody to whom you make the object code available. Note that this is no different from the "normal" GPL. The difference between the normal and the Affero ...


5

Nothing happened. The main reason is that Stallman grossly overestimated the amount of help he was going to get from other developers, so his plans were, correspondingly, grandiose. In fact, the first generally useful GNU systems did not become available for 10 years (until the Linux kernel became usable for a non-hacker user). This lead to the sarcastic ...


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 ...


4

If your repository was private, unlicensed code, and now you want to make the code public under an open-source license, then what's the problem? You can't retroactively apply changes to license terms. Otherwise, nobody would be able to rely on a particular license, because it would be subject to change at any time. But since the code currently has no ...


4

The original owner is the copyright owner, GPL or not. Replacing his copyright notice with your own means you are making a fraudulent claim that you are the copyright owner. Apart from that it's a bloody cheek.


3

Yes, but only if you license your product as AGPL as well. Just offering to provide source code to whoever asks is not enough. That does not prevent you from asking money for the product, but it means your customers have more rights than you maybe like. In particular, it would be perfectly fine for your first customer to put up your software for free on ...


3

The MIT license is compatible with the GNU GPL. You can use MIT libraries in your projects, so long as you continue to abide by the GPL's terms. However, the MIT terms only apply to the MIT library in isolation. If, for example, you want to close your source, you cannot do it if you use any GPL'd code in your project. The copyleft provision of the GPL ...


3

If your software only interacts with the server through the standard OS interfaces or other standardized interfaces, then you can use the GPL server without question. The GPL license applies to entire applications, but there are limits to what is considered part of such an application. In particular, the boundaries are: system APIs API's that conform to ...


2

The short answer is no, it does not work that way. To clear up the confusion, I find it helps to think of licenses as applying to distributions of software, rather than the software directly (as far as I know, this is actually closer to the truth). I'll pretend your project is called DEFM. If you release DEFM under GPLv3, then someone downloads it and uses ...


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 are asking for a technological solution to a non-technological problem. You have these constraints: All files with certain extensions below a directory are source code files that are part of the project. Except people randomly make additional files that violates the first constraint. Except some random additional files do not violate the first ...


2

1) Could I use GPL V3 and my own copyright for the main project (with or without naming the other author)? The copyright notice must include the other author, because they still have copyright over (part of the) work. The GPL license specifies that it must apply to any derived work, sou you must use GPL-3.0. You may chose to license the sources you wrote ...


2

If you've got a 16bit OS then there'll be 2 bytes next to each other in memory. One with 00000100 in and the other with 00000000. Whether it's stored as 00000000-00000100 or 00000100-00000000 depends on whether your OS is little-endian or big-endian. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness


1

The exact representation is unspecified in the C standard, (which is partly why int might be 16, 32 or 64 bits) A typical representation is 2's complement, because it allows the same hardware to do both signed and unsigned arithmetic. Decimal 4 is binary 0000000000000100. There is no "conversion", all values are bit strings.


1

Every implementation of C has to supply the standard library, but not every C compiler is written by the FSF! So the GNU C compiler will use the GNU C library, and Intel's C compiler uses a different standard library (with a less catchy name). Both will be instantiations of the standard library that the C standard requires.


1

The license of Kbuild can only affect the license of your own product if parts of Kbuild end up in the product you are distributing. The main function of a build system like Kbuild is to make sure that the parts of your product get built in the right order and with the right flags. None of this involves making changes to your code. The fact that you need ...


1

What licensing restrictions does that imply for that file specifically GPL. You must provide the source of that file, exactly as used for building, to anybody who got the binary that includes it from you. and for projects using it? Only those for the file itself, as long as the file itself is a reasonably self-contained component. The gcc library ...


1

As I commented, for a github thing, you might make a pull request. Don't change the owner name but add your own name as contributor (and update the copyright years). YMMV. And don't change the license (e.g. to GPLv3+) without permission from the original author (unless you are sure that your license is upward compatible with his one, and even then you'll ...


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