21–30 of 57 posts
You can't add a GPL-3 license in your repo (which explicitly allows modification, distribution, commercial use) and then also write "not for commercial distribution" in the README. Pick one. Even then, it can be argued that a national government publishing an app for free is not commercial use.
First off, looks like a nice app, well done. So what exactly is your objection? You open-sourced it under GPL, you mentioned they made some changes, have they not open sourced them and thus broke the terms of the Licence, is that what bothers you? Or is it lack of attribution and notifying you, which would be a decent and respectful thing to do? What was your actual intention here: 1. Create an app to help the world…
It'd be totally fine had they respected the license or attributed the project. It's great to know that people use your app and find it useful, and that's why I offered the app to JHU to publish it in their name when Apple rejected it. I'm bothered more by the way the app is published without attribution and how I knew about that.
i just don't understand your complaint at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be totally fine had they respected the license or attributed the project. It's great to know that people use your app and find it useful, and that's why I offered the app to JHU to publish it in their name when Apple rejected it. I'm bothered more by the way the app is published without attribution and how I knew about that.
how exactly did they not respect the license? i just don't understand your complaint at all.
IANAL but this is not nitpicky legal details; it's the entire point of a copyleft license.
Would you mind articulating how they violated your expectations?
Congratulations on your coronavirus open-source app getting distributed and presumably used! I know it sucks that they didn't credit you or honor the GPL by sharing their modified source, and folks downloading it from a not-exactly-trustworthy government isn't my first choice, but I sincerely offer you my congratulations nonetheless.
You could likely ask Apple to take down Saudi Arabia's version as a violation of your copyrights, and a violation of the license under which you offered your creation. It's the FSF's position that Apple App Store distribution necessarily includes extra restrictions that violate the GPL: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance So, while your "no commercial use" addition itself contradicted the GPL, the G…
You can't add a GPL-3 license in your repo (which explicitly allows modification, distribution, commercial use) and then also write "not for commercial distribution" in the README. Pick one. Even then, it can be argued that a national government publishing an app for free is not commercial use.
But does not allow Tivoization, something that the App store does. This is clearly a violation of the license.
You can't add a GPL-3 license in your repo (which explicitly allows modification, distribution, commercial use) and then also write "not for commercial distribution" in the README. Pick one. Even then, it can be argued that a national government publishing an app for free is not commercial use.
More than that, I's say it's a pretty big stretch to say that a government giving something away is in any way 'commercial use'.
“I have observed, throughout life, that a man may do an immense deal of good, if he does not care who gets the credit for it.” — Father Strickland Congratulations on your coronavirus open-source app getting distributed and presumably used! I know it sucks that they didn't credit you or honor the GPL by sharing their modified source, and folks downloading it from a not-exactly-trustworthy government isn't my first cho…