Are shell scripts considered binaries for licensing purposes? There are a number of licenses that contain the term &quot;binary distribution&quot;. For example, https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/LICENSE_1_0.txt: A simple permissive license only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices for source (and not binary) distribution. What does this term precisely mean? Specifically, can I use shell scripts (e.g., https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/tools/build-and-test.sh) without preservation of copyright notice? Do bash scripts count as both source and binary files? Or does &quot;binary&quot; mean only something produced by the equally vague term &quot;compiler&quot;?
Do bash scripts count as both source and binary files? No. Absent a definition of binary file or of shell script in the license, the commonplace meaning of the terms will apply. Under the commonplace meaning of binary file and of shell script, the latter counts as source, not as binaries. In the license at issue, the language &quot;machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor&quot; reinforces the argument that shell scripts are not binaries. That is because all commands, keywords, and symbols/signs in a shell script are directly provided by a human and without the need for a processor to convert that code to something else. Even if the script also contained binary code, as in the case of a shellcode (example, for a buffer overflow exploit), the presence of that shellcode does not change the fact that it is embedded in a script to which the previous paragraph applies.
You seem to assume that copyrights require paperwork such as registration. This is wrong, copyright is automatic. And it prevents the downloader from making the sort of change that you suggest. In fact, it prevents the downloader from using your template at all. The only reason the downloader can use that template is because you've granted him a specific license to ignore some copyright rules, but the default remains. And you did not grant the right to alter the template to free users.
Pseudo-code written down somewhere is protected by copyright, even if the article containing it doesn't say anything about the pseudo-code contained in it (i.e. doesn't mention "this too is copyrighted"). For example, let us assume that the following isn't actual compileable / executable code in some extant programming language: procedure bubbleSort( A : list of sortable items ) n = length(A) repeat swapped = false for i = 1 to n-1 inclusive do /* if this pair is out of order */ if A[i-1] &gt; A[i] then /* swap them and remember something changed */ swap( A[i-1], A[i] ) swapped = true end if end for until not swapped end procedure It does nevertheless constitute an expression of an abstract algorithm. If it can be copied and pasted, it is an expression. If you run this through a filter to create executable code in some language, you will have created a derivative work (and possibly one with no copyright protection, if the conversion is totally automatic). If you read the lines and say "Ah, I know what that would be in Pascal", that has the modicum of creativity required to make your conversion protected, but you've still infringed the underlying work. On the other hand, a logical flow chart, which is a picture of the abstract idea of what to do, is copyright-protected only as a graphic object. If you look at it and it inspires you to write pseudo-code or actual code, you are not copying the flow chart.
Distribution on YouTube implicates, at least, US copyright law. Shropshire v. Canning 809 F.Supp.2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2011), Subafilms v. MGM 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) Are you infringing? Is the original work eligible for copyright? &quot;It is undisputed that computer programs— defined in the Copyright Act as a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result, can be subject to copyright protection as literary works.&quot; 17 USC 102, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted). Are you making a copy or displaying the work publicly? (17 USC 106) You concede that you are doing this in the hypothetical, so we can skip this step. Do you have permission to do this? Some work is licensed to allow your proposed use. If you have permission, then this entire answer is moot. Are you taking what amounts to a substantial taking of the original? Presumably, you will not need to show the entire source file to present the naming conventions and techniques that other developers have used. But, what you do show will be an exact reproduction of the original. In the case of computer programs, all US districts use the abstraction-filtration-comparison test. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992). The abstraction stage of this test is irrelevant in this hypothetical because the reproduction is exact. Filtration excludes any uncopyrightable elements of the original from consideration (due to scènes à faire, merger, lack of originality). The comparison stage compares what remains after the filtration stage, to determine if the new work takes substantially from the original. Fair use defense If your use is found to be infringing based on the above analysis, the affirmative defense of fair use is available. I can't tell you whether a fair use defense would be applicable or successful in your particular case. However, you can search the US Copyright Office's Fair Use Index for many examples successful fair use defenses when a literary work was reproduced in part or whole for educational purposes. There are also other affirmative defenses available (implied license, for example), or defenses that directly attack the elements of copyright infringement. Some confusion exists regarding &quot;idea/expression merger&quot; as a defense after a prima facie case of copyright infringement has been made. This isn't completely correct. Where idea/expression merger enters the analysis differs from circuit to circuit. In the 6th circuit, merger enters in the copyrightability analysis (paragraph 1. above). But, the 2nd and 9th circuits treat merger as part of the infringement analysis (paragraph 4. above) and in the 9th circuit, merger is an affirmative defense. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) The idea/expression merger doctrine is not implicated just because &quot;the idea one that is expressing is 'this is the code they used.'&quot; When you need to cite/show the original work for purposes of &quot;criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching&quot;, that is a direct implication of fair use. Using using this justification triggers the full four-factor fair use analysis. (17 USC 107). You don't get to reproduce a work just because you want to say &quot;this is the work they created.&quot;
The answer by Dale M. is correct, but a bit brief. "Selling" is not an exact phrase. What you do not want to do is to transfer ("sell") the copyright to the source code. If you did that, you would put yourself in legal danger because they now own the copyright to code that you use in other products, and can sue you for copyright infringement. However, you selling a copy of source code does not imply transfer of copyright in any shape of form. When you buy a copy of a book in a book store, the author's copyright is not transferred to you. Accepting this deal would put the other party in legal danger. Even if they have bought the source code, they still don't have a license to make further copies of it and sell those. This is why you need to license the software to them. In brief: Copyright grants the copyright owner a lot of rights. These rights are always licensed, not sold. The right that is relevant here is the right to create derivative works. A license is simply a contract between the two parties, describing a particular business arrangement in legally binding terms. If I were in your position, I would hire an IP lawyer to help drafting the license. But, basically, the license should say that you, as owner of the copyright to ABC software, grants XYZ company access to its source in its present form, and also grants XYZ company the right to create derivative works, but only for hardware platform DEF, and to create and distribute copies of their derivative work.
Without a license, you have no right to copy or distribute someone else's work. Suppose you copy or distribute against the terms of the license. Either you didn't agree to the license, and therefore had no right to do as you did; or you did agree and still violated the terms of the license anyway. By the law of the excluded middle (accepted or not accepted), you infringed either way.
You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The law is usually used to justify copies of the installation media, but it would be unconscionable to cut your rights off there and make backups illegal for machines containing copyrighted software. After all, with such an interpretation, no Windows machine could be backed up since Windows is copyrighted.
While the Commons Clause is not an Open Source license, the BSD license allows you to do this. To be clear, you cannot change the license of other people's code. You can however add your own code and license it under whatever terms you want. The resulting code then consists of your modifications, under whatever license you want parts of the original code, under BSD-3-clause Since you are a license-taker for the BSD-3-clause material, you must still comply with its license such as providing any recipients with the copyright + license notice. When people receive the software with your modifications, they must comply with both your chosen license terms for your modifications, and with the BSD-3-clause license for the other parts. For example, you can use the Commons Clause to prevent certain competing uses of the software as a whole. But since you will presumably provide the source code of the software, other people are free to use the BSD-3-clause code under the terms of that license, ignoring your restrictions. If you provide binaries then the resulting binary would not be covered by the BSD-3-clause license, but you would still have to provide the copyright and license notice for the original code as a kind of attribution.