Obtaining source code from an uncooperative company when you&#39;re an author According to an answer on Methods for obtaining source code from an uncooperative company: You're probably out of luck. The company distributing this firmware has an obligation to provide you the source code, but this obligation is to the copyright holder. You are not the copyright holder. The copyright holder would have to sue them for license compliance. Does this change for someone who wrote some of the code and the copyright of that portion is under their name? For example, would someone like Ulrich Drepper (the author of several components of the Linux kernel) be in a different situation than the OP of that question with regards to having rights to the source code if other copyright holders (like SFC) don't sue?
It depends on the license the code comes under and whether theres a copyright-assignment requirement for that project. In the case of the Linux kernel, the license is the GPLv2, and there is no copyright assignment requirement - so anyone who can prove ownership of code within the shipped binary (important caveat there - the Linux kernel is configurable, so parts of it can be excluded from the binary) can pursue a claim of copyright infringement if the source code is not distributed according to the license. With the case of things like GCC (until the most recent version), while the project uses the GPL (v3), it also required copyright assignment to the FSF, meaning the original authors do not hold the copyright and thus have no standing to sue (authors rights not-with-standing). They have now dropped this requirement in the latest GCC version, but it stands for older versions. As copyright holder, you have no ability to actually force the binary distributor to comply with the terms of the license - you can merely threaten them with, and pursue, a claim of copyright infringement. In court, you can sue to stop them from infringing further and to pay punitive and actual damages. You may be able to get them to agree to conform with the license terms, but its highly doubtful that a court would agree to force them to conform with the license terms (there has yet to be a copyright-infringement case orientated around open source software that has resulted in a court forcing the infringing company to GPL their own code they were trying to protect by non-compliance). So, to answer your question, theres no actual avenue here which results in you obtaining the source code you have copyright ownership of - the legal actions you can take are ones of stopping infringement and claiming damages. You might be able to come to an out-of-court settlement or a voluntary agreement to provide the code, but court actions will be about stopping the infringement and damages.
Let me give some nuance, if not a definitive answer, since I'm not a lawyer. First, ArXiv holds only a license, not the underlying copyright. You need to contact the copyright holder to get permission (and a license). That may be the authors themselves, or a journal if they have assigned the copyright to it. However, it might be more complicated, especially for commercial use. Since the authors of papers frequently use images created by others, sometimes correctly and sometimes not, you should explore a bit more. Perhaps the paper itself will have a citation of the figure and an indication of its source, and hence of its copyright holder. In that case, the authors may not be able to help you, since, at best, they probably also hold just a license. However, for some academic purposes and in some jurisdictions an academic work can be permitted to use a figure (or other things) without regard to copyright. This is called fair use and it varies around the world. But a commercial work won't be able (probably) to depend on the same exception to copyright law and you still have to find the copyright holder. Moreover, even if the authors have a proper license (explicitly), that license (a) may not be transferrable and (b) might be for non-commercial use only. Academic copyright holders often (not universally) issue their work under a fairly permissive license but that is restricted to non-commercial use. Since they hold the copyright they can also issue additional licenses against it if they like, but need to do so explicitly. Ultimately, to use the work of others you have to deal with the copyright question. It is further complicated by the fact that a figure may be considered under the law as a "complete work" even if it appears within another work. So, replicating it is less likely to fall under fair use rules - though they vary. And, there is one other question you should ask yourself. Is your talk really a commercial use? If you are an academic, it may be a subtle question, or not.
Can anybody create their own license? That is to say, can I for example create my own license under which I can license software? Yep. It's just a contract granting rights to use a copyrighted work. You can write your own contracts, so you can write your own software license. It's just often recommended that you don't, because common licenses are more well-understood, and inexperienced drafters may make errors that could result in problems, such as unintended restrictions, failing to restrict things that were intended to be restricted, or creating provisions that aren't enforceable in some/all jurisdictions. Can you mandate how a software will be released? Yes. Many software licenses, including GPL, do. The restrictions you describe in your example sound similar to CC BY-NC-SA. Also, would the following clause even be legal? Using this software you agree that any work and intellectual property based on or created with this software will be under the [INSERT_NAME_LICENSE] license, even after any and all code from this software is removed in a future update, or even if the work is rebuilt from the ground up I'm not entirely certain, but &quot;even after any and all code from this software is removed in a future update, or even if the work is rebuilt from the ground up&quot; seems, in my opinion, unlikely to be enforceable—especially &quot;even if the work is rebuilt from the ground up.&quot; How would you differentiate a complete rebuild from a totally new piece of software? More broadly, once your copyrighted code is no longer in the product, there's nothing for them to license from you. It's hard to imagine how you'd be able to claim that you're harmed by someone releasing a new version of a product that used to contain your code under a different license. Without harm to you, there's nothing for a court to redress.
If you use the reviewer's code, or code derived from it (e.g. if you just changed a variable name) then they own the copyright on that part of the software. If the reviewer describes a solution which you implement, or if you re-implement the code from scratch while taking ideas and methods from the reviewer's code, then you own the copyright on that code. However if there are only a few ways to implement something in code then the code is not creative and hence cannot be copyrighted. For example the regular expression in the question you link to is (as far as I can tell) the only correct solution to the problem: any programmer addressing the problem will have come up with that RE. In this the position is akin to a database of phone numbers: while the collection may be copyright (depending on whether selection or arrangement required creativity), the fact that Alice Jones has the number 012345 is not copyrightable, and neither is the alphabetical arrangement of names. Where it gets messy is the boundary between the two. The requirement to detect 4 or more repeated digits in a credit card number could be implemented in a number of ways, but whether there are enough of these to qualify any particular solution as "creative" would be a matter of fact for a court to decide.
Copyright infringement requires that you actually copy elements from an earlier work produced by a different author. If you created a similar, or even identical, work independently, it is not copyright infringement. When considering whether or not infringement has occurred, the court is likely to consider whether the defendant could reasonably have had access to the plaintiff's work. If the court finds that they could have, then the defendant would be required to produce evidence of original authorship. Consider the My Sweet Lord/He So Fine case, where the court found the defendant had subconsciously copied the plaintiff's song. Had Harrison been able to produce evidence of original authorship, the judgment could have been different. In your example, it is unlikely that an suit in copyright infringement could be decided against you, as you've stated the text is generated randomly. However, more evidence of this randomness might be required to support your case. Of course, whether a computer or automated process can produce works independently is still questionable; I'm not aware of cases that have tried this. The US Copyright Office has said that Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Of course, whether this has a bearing on your particular scenario is undecided, and I'm not sure how it would be decided. It is almost certain that the worst case outcome would be an injunction requiring you to cease publicising the product, or perform reasonable checks prior to publication to ensure that the product of your program infringes on works; it would be unlikely that you would have costs ordered against you, especially if the program is truly random, and the random text was given as much, or more, publicity than the coherent text.
You have misunderstood the MIT license. The MIT license requires you to include a copy of &quot;the above copyright notice and this permission notice&quot; in &quot;all copies or substantial portions of the Software.&quot; However, this is not the same as requiring you to offer the Software under those terms, and in fact the MIT license explicitly permits you to sublicense the Software under different terms (&quot;including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software&quot;). If you had to offer the Software under the same terms, then the sublicense right would be extinguished, so that cannot be the correct reading of the license. Therefore, you can do exactly what you describe, releasing the software under the GPL. In other words, you have to include the permission notice, but you are expressly permitted to wrap it in terms that state &quot;these permissions don't apply to you, dear end user, but only to people who go and download the original from the upstream source.&quot; That's what &quot;sublicense&quot; means. The Free Software Foundation, which publishes the GPL, agrees with this analysis (although they recommend avoiding the phrase &quot;MIT License&quot; because MIT has offered software under other licenses).
Your understanding of the GPL is a bit off. GPLed code doesn't generally force you to GPL the output of the program, but that's just because the output of the program is normally not a derivative work of the program. For instance, if you write a novel in Emacs, your novel is an entirely original work. The fact that you used Emacs as a tool doesn't mean that your novel is somehow based on Emacs. This generator is different. It generates sprites by putting together art assets made by the program's creator. That means that the output contains a substantial amount of content made by the program creator, which means that it would likely be covered by the program creator's copyright. If the content was licensed to you under the GPL, you normally have to abide by GPL restrictions when you redistribute the content or incorporate it into your own program. Copyright holders can, if they want, grant additional permissions to their content and allow you to incorporate that content into nonfree software. For instance, the GCC compilers have an additional permission for their runtime libraries to let you use them in any GCC-compiled code; without that permission, GCC could only be used to compile GPL-compatible code. But unless the copyright holder has granted those permissions, when program output contains large amounts of their copyrighted content you're bound by the GPL when using it. In this case, the program specifically says that the art is dual-licensed under GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA-3.0. Since the generator's output is a combination of premade art assets (the buttons just let you tell the program which art assets to combine), the output is a derivative work of those assets. You can't use it unless your use is compatible with the GPL v3 or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (either works, since dual licensing lets you pick either license).
There is no loophole because a work released in object code form only — without the Corresponding Source — is not released under GPLv3, even if you say it is. GPLv3 only requires them to also provide whatever source came with it False. Providing the Corresponding Source is compulsory (§6 as pointed by @cHao). If they do not have access to it, it means the work has not been released under GPLv3.