Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Example clarification #15

Open
TKQT opened this issue Feb 22, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Example clarification #15

TKQT opened this issue Feb 22, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@TKQT
Copy link
Contributor

TKQT commented Feb 22, 2023

It is possible that decisions made before open sourcing could become a risk after open sourcing. As an example of a plausible scenario; a team need to implement a new function. This function exists in another GPL-3 copy left licenced project. To add that project would introduce multiple dependencies that aren't used by that particular function so a member of the team decides to copy the function into the package. One year later, the package is open sourced with the licence infringing code. Such an occurrence could be lessened by a Contributor Licence Agreement (CLA; see [the bot contributor-assistant](https://github.com/contributor-assistant/github-action) for an example of CLA automation). A CLA helps ensure that anyone contributing to a project acknowledges specific terms expected of contributions, like the contributions are novel code and the author will abide by the projects licence terms. In the absence of a CLA it is important to ensure that all code within the package is original, and there is no culture of cannibalising external code and infringing on people's copyright within the development team even for internal projects.

I think this example needs more details. It writes "This function exists in another GPL-3 copy left licenced project" - does that imply that the project which copies the function and then goes open-source at a later point in time will also be released under GPLv3?

If that is the assumption, then they are not necessarily in the wrong as per my understanding (is the original project attributed and referenced explicitly?):
https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-gpl-v3/
image

On the other hand, releasing the project, including a piece of code under GPLv3 and then marking the project as MIT would be an infringement, seeing as MIT is less strict than GPLv3 about permissions.

@epijim
Copy link
Collaborator

epijim commented Mar 2, 2023

Thanks @TKQT, this is a great point. Would #25 be on track to tidy this up?

@epijim
Copy link
Collaborator

epijim commented Mar 2, 2023

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants