The commercial license prohibits reverse engineering and tampering with our license key mechanism unlocking paid features so that we can run a compliant and fair commercial business.

It is not by accident that those distributions care a lot about the license of the software they distribute.

So, what can we do? In the short term, it’s very simple. If you care about the commons, you should put your work under a strong copyleft license like the AGPL. That way, we will get back to building that commons we lost because of web services. If someone ever complains that a web service broke because of your AGPL code, reply that the whole web service should be under the AGPL too.

You cannot sell or distribute Content (either in digital or physical form) on a Standalone basis. Standalone means where no creative effort has been applied to the Content and it remains in substantially the same form as it exists on our website.

The man who deposed Ben Gomes — someone who worked on Google Search from the very beginning — was so shit at his job that in 2009 Yahoo effectively threw in the towel on its own search technology, instead choosing to license Bing’s engine in a ten-year deal.

Licenses : You are free to share all of my pictures under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 2.0. The PoIC, as a software, is free to modify and/or redistribute under the GNU General Public License v3.0.

Their ideas of possible action vary fromimportant-looking signed pronounce-ments and protests to the withholding ofservices and the refusal to assist in techni-cal developments that may be misap-plied.

dedicated using Creative Commons

a MIT style license, which does not require the notices to be reproduced anywhere outside of the actual library code.

I’d like to remind you that the code wasn’t developed by WordPress - it was General Public License (GPL). We didn’t steal it, and we gave it back according to GPL (JavaScript is not linked).

MIT License. Copyright 2020 Rafael França, Carlos Antônio da Silva. Copyright 2009-2019 Plataformatec.

Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above.

note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

Why is TRB licensed under LGPL, not MIT?

The LGPL allows users to use and integrate LGPL software components into their own software without being required to release the source code of their own software components. However, if users modify LGPL software components (“derivative work”), they are required to make the modified software component available under the same LGPL license. To avoid the latter with TRB, users have to comply with para. 5 LGPLv2.1: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a “work that uses the Library”. Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. In other words: if you use the TRB libraries in your commercial applications or Open-Source projects, you’re not creating a derivative work of Trailblazer. Your software can be distributed under any terms.

In order to support easy reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution, the entire Hypothesis Help knowledge base by Hypothesis is dedicated to the public domain via CC CC0 1.0. While we appreciate attribution and links back to Hypothesis from anywhere these works are published, they are not required.

There have also been extensions for suggestions towards more “ethical” licensing, to prevent certain undesirable uses.

It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.

but that doesn’t mean that confining applications is not a benefit also to FOSS applications, security is an issue that needs to be addressed with many layers of measures no mater what licensing approach you use to license the software

I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL friendly. You can use it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really just about whatever you want.

How does the licensing work in this new setup? Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.

See https://choosealicense.com/ for tl;dr Please, please add a license. The fact none is listed makes using this software a legal quagmire. Currently it is not legal to use this code or its derivatives in any useful software. I may be mistaken but hopefully this is not the intended effect. Currently no license is mentioned anywhere, what makes this code fully copyrighted, like any other creative work. It limits usefulness of this project - and I hope that it is unintentional. For example it seems that it would solve my problem of profiling hilariously slow rspec tests (2036.33 seconds ./spec/word_processor_spec.rb:43), in current situation I would be unable to legally publish project that would use this solution. Obviously, please do not release it under any license if you are not the author (that would be even worse legal quagmire)

Disqus does not allow that user can use free licenses for their comments. It is not clear who has ownership of the comments.

Although there were some patenting and licensing concerns with GraphQL, these have been resolved to our satisfaction by the relicensing of the reference implementations under MIT, and the use of the OWF license for the GraphQL specification.

Members currently electing to withdraw from the default royalty free license and instead offer Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms are:

Unless otherwise noted when Contributed, it will be assumed to be made entirely by you with no required attribution or other encumbrances.

The most controversial issue in RAND licensing is whether the "reasonable" license price should include the value contributed by the standard-setting organization's decision to adopt the standard. A technology is often more valuable after it has been widely adopted than when it is one alternative among many; there is a good argument that a license price that captures that additional value is not "reasonable" because it does not reflect the intrinsic value of the technology being licensed. On the other hand, the adoption of the standard may signal that the adopted technology is valuable, and the patent holder should be rewarded accordingly. That is particularly relevant when the value of the patent is not clearly known before the adoption of the standard.

The Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licenses are inherently discriminatory.

retains credit for their intellectual property.

Any external contributions to the project from outside Outrun Labs, LLC will not be subject to this 'time-delay' - they'll be dual-licensed immediately under the MIT License.

Franchise products are governed too much by economic logic and not enough by artistic vision

CC BY-SA

The involvement of for-profit companies like Lumen in the production and distribution of open educational resources remains controversial, since they oftentimes wind up charging students for content that is supposed to be free. Advocates for OER also sometimes worry about whether companies will capture and control student data.

the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded

If big publishers really add value to OER, then open-wrapping is not necessarily a bad thing, said Jhangiani. This is different to "openwashing" where publishers spin a product as open while continuing proprietary practices, he explained. "However, in order for this role to actually be beneficial to the community, they would need to radically change their mentality so that they do not price gouge and do not limit the choices and formats available to students and faculty," said Jhangiani. "They also need to stop behaving like parasites who simply absorb OER into their catalogues and instead also contribute resources back to the commons (like Cengage did a little bit last summer)." 

Consequently, the SA condition does not apply to your contributions to modified works including these kinds of changes.

In other words, the CC licenses (all of which include the BY condition) enable the creator of a work to prohibit you from attributing them. However, except in the extremely rare cases where the creator explicitly prohibits you from attributing them, you are always required to attribute the creator of a work shared under a CC BY license.

Are comments permanent, and can they be cited? Yes. By making a comment, you agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for your submissions to PubMed Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Are comments permanent, and can they be cited? Yes. By making a comment, you agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for your submissions to PubMed Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Content license You agree to freely dedicate your public contributions to the public domain or, where that is not possible because of law, to freely dedicate your publications using the Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication (contributions prior to October 27, 2014 were made without reference to specific licensing terms).

terms

necessary

In the United States, before 1989 no creative work was protected by copyright unless the creator opted in to protection by reigstering. Open (free + permissions) was the default. It was only in 1989, when the US joined the Berne Convention, that protection of all creative works became automatic and closed became the new default, requiring people to opt-in to sharing.

PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT

Hence Linux, hence Wikipedia. Because these communities could grow and collaborate without geographic constraint, major work was done at significantly lower cost and often zero price.

Technically, if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them. And then that person’s code would potentially have a different license from the rest of your code.Your average hobbyist developer might not care about the rules, but many companies forbid employees from using Stack Overflow, partly for this reason.As we enter a post open source world, Stack Overflow has explored transitioning to a more permissive MIT license, but the conversation hasn’t been easy. Questions like what happens to legacy code, and dual licensing for code and non-code contributions, have generated confusion and strong reactions.

respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on