licensing – Forking a GNU GPL v3 project. Project changed to Porkord license

A user forked the project when it was under GNU GPL v3 license, the original project has since changed to a Porkord license and is claiming the user is stealing their code and that their project was never truly a GPL v3 project. The project’s github’s history for their licenses show them using MIT, GPL v3 and now Porkord.

Are the original project developers in the right by claiming the user forking the project is in the wrong?

gpl – Is it possible/necessary to add Classpath Exception to LGPL?

I see people comparing the GPL with a Classpath exception to the standard LGPL. Does this mean that LGPL already has the Classpath exception or some language already similar enough to it? If not, can it be added in the same way the exception can be added to the GPL or would the linking language already present in LGPL not allow this?

System calls to GPL covered by linking exception? [closed]

I’d like to release a project of mine under MIT. It makes system calls to a dependency that is GPL-3. Is this covered by the linking exception?

java – How does GPL code work translated to an interpretive language?

Say I distribute a Java application which I wrote most of it. Let’s say some of the code is MIT license, or BSD, but none of it is GPL. Now I need some functionality which I found GPL C code or Java code. I sure can’t use it unless I made my whole project GPL.

Now, let’s say I convert this GPL code to Lua, and use LuaJ in my application to run it. Will this allow me to keep my application non-GPL? I sure will still publish the converted lua code to be GPL and release with my application.

Free new GNU GPL 3.0 eMarket engine. Preparing for release.

Hey. This is my first post.

Now is the end of 2020, and we can finally share the project that we started doing on March 10, 2018. The release of the alpha version is scheduled for January 1, but the demo with the latest commits has already been uploaded for today, and you can check it out. The project was originally planned as Open Source licensed under the GNU GPL 3.0. A lot of work has been done and we are ready to share the results with the open source community.

We have been engaged in online shopping for many years, and as a result we have our own understanding and vision of some aspects. We made many things not typical, and this should find understanding among users. We tried to save the store manager from running around the menu to assign simple daily functions. The engine is built like MVC + L. Used Bootstrap 3. In this article, I will not go into technical aspects and solutions, and suggest that you look at everything yourself. Below are screenshots.

[​IMG]

[​IMG]

Please note that in the warehouse section, all basic actions with goods / categories are performed through the context menu by right-clicking. Many people may not immediately understand this, so we warn you in advance. But it’s convenient.
SEMrush

Support Forum and Demo: http://emarketforum.com
GitHub Page – https://github.com/musicman3/eMarket

 

licensing – Implementing the same idea under GPL and under MIT

If you are the sole copyright holder on the code, you can do anything you like with it. It doesn’t matter if you’ve published it under the GPL, you are always free to dual-license it under the MIT license, as proprietary code or any other license you feel like.

In legal terms, you publishing code under a license grants additional rights to people other than you in how they use the code. It it no way restricts what you can do with the code.

If someone bought a premium WP theme or plugin NOT under GPL, can they freely redistribute it? [closed]

If someone bought a premium WP theme or plugin, can they freely redistribute it Or even resell it? Can they do that even if the theme or plugin is NOT GPL licensed?

Does GPL library in git history poison all code?

I am working on a proprietary project. My colleague used – by mistake – GPLv3 library (copying it’s source code and building along with it). The fact was discovered pretty early (before any release happened), and he replaced it by library with more permissive licence, however, the development process does not allow rebasing – the fact that given library was used is in git history probably forever.

Does that pose an issue? Did the single component already “poisoned” the code, and do we need to remove all traces of it?

It was used in a tool, where it is possible it could be made public with source codes.

using GPL licensed code in an MIT licensed project

I don't quite understand the results of using the GPL licensed code in your project. Let's say that there is a library under GPL license and a project which uses this library under MIT license. After a few years, the creators of this project realize that they are using a library under the GPL license. Since they don't want to write this by themselves, they decide to reclassify the project under GPL, because that is what the GPL requires of them. My question is what is going on with the MIT license. As this is a larger project, many functions do not come from the library under the GPL license. Does this mean that these functions are now still under the MIT license, but the whole project is under GPL license because of the library, because the MIT and GPL licenses are compatible, or are these functions only under GPL license, because the project was still using this library?

gpl – Propagation of software product dependencies licenses to run-generated code from third-party user data

Imagine the following scenario:

The software provider V develops the free and open source product P, whose internal API is linked to a GPL library L.

The software user U uses the product P to generate data, which in turn is used to generate the code of a proprietary language PL, defined by P, which P interprets in turn. This constitutes the owner's own closed source commercial product of the user U, developed with the aid of P.

My question is, considering that PL is a strictly interpreted language, and does not make a direct link to L, and any third-party user of P or UP can still satisfy the GPL reconnection requirements by linking P and by extension, the routines by which PL of UP is executed, is the product of P subject to any obligation with regard to LPG?