Açıklaması şöyle.
Açıklaması şöyle
The GPLv3 states that you have to license your code under the GPL if it were a “work based on the Program”, which is defined “to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission”.GPLv3 Sadece Çıktısı Kullanılacak Şekilde Kullanılabilir.
Açıklaması şöyle
The license of an application and the license of data that application produces can be independent, and are only interrelated if the data includes executable code from the executable itself
Bir örnek şöyle.
There is a GPLv3-licensed open source library on GitHub which is used by the company I work for in a central component of the business. The business does not sell software, but only a manipulation of the output of software. All software is executed by the business on machines owned by the business, not by the customers. No binaries or source code or anything is distributed to the customers except for the results.Eğer Yazılımın Kendisi Satılıyorsa GPLv3 Yazılımın Kaynak Kodu Verilmek Zorundadır
Açıklaması şöyle.
GPLv3 have it written in sections 4-6 - You send (convey) Source Code verbatim (4) or modified (5) and that is it - no more sharing required
- you send (convey) the Non-Source code with Source code on the same medium (6 a) - no more sharing required
- you provide some Physical Product (as a eq. machine) with Non-Source code (6b) so you must add written promise to provide Source Code to anyone who got the object code either on media for (basically) postage price, or free access to the Source code on web (both for at least 3 years and at least while you support such physical product)
- you may resend such product (occasionally, nonbusiness) with copy of the written promise (basically give the machine and all to somebody) (6c)
- put it on web and provide link for download Source code to anybody as long as you provide it (6d)
- give the object code to a peer and send him link, where the Source is (6e)
- or do not convey it at all (that means, there is no other way to convey legally).
Kaynak kod GitHub gibi bi yerde olabilir. Açıklaması şöyle
It seems to me that telling people who download your code that the source is available on GitHub, and providing a link to the repository, satisfies that obligation, provided they are told prominently, clearly, and at the point of binary download. Tucking this notification away in a file buried five levels deep in your documentation, called wombat_equivalence.tex, will not satisfy this requirement. Note also that if GitHub goes offline or the original author deletes the repository, that's your problem, not your users'.GPLv2 contains similar language at the end of s3. I'm less sure about MPL but I'd be surprised if it were not also similar.
GPLv3 Yazılıma Daha Fazla Kısıt Koymak
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
GPL 3.0 or any later version
Açıklaması şöyle
GPLv3 Yazılım Daha Sonra Lisans DeğiştirirseIf a piece of software states it is under the GPL 3.0, without the phrase "or any later version", then it is GPL-3.0-only.
Biz GPLv3 bir yazılımı fork'ladıktan sonra yazılım lisans değiştirirse biz de otomatik olarak lisans değiştirmiş olmayız. Açıklaması şöyle.
Not only are you not required to change the license, you are not permitted to. The code you took at the time was, according to you, conveyed under GPLv3. You've worked on it, and made a derivative work (in copyright terms), which you can only lawfully distribute under GPLv3 (see GPLv3 s5c).GLPv3 İçinde Apache Kullanmak
GLPv3 projelerde Apache kodu kullanılabilir. Açıklaması şöyle.
Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of copyright law.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder