Re-Releasing, Re-Naming and Re-Writing Open Source GNU V3 Licensed software MAIN QUESTION SUMMARY: Can someone with real world experience, who has actually Modified, Re-Wrote, Re-Released and Re-Named Open Source GNU V3 Licensed software; please share their experience on the subject? Background: I have been working on and debugging a plugin (for an OpenSource CMS system) for 4 years (about 500 hr per year) in order to make it work perfectly. The plugin is licensed as: GNU General Public License version 3 [or later] The plugin clearly states: free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify Over that time the following things have happened: The plugin developers have not supported the plugin very well or fast enough (in my opinion) I have added major new functionality to the Plugin using "extensions" I have patched the plugin repeatedly, for example: Upgraded from PHP 5.4 => 7.0 => 7.2 (cleaned up errors, rewrites, removed lazy code like faulty output buffering and is_array checks - ect...) Updated JS to modern web standards (Select2 3.5.3 => 4.0.2, jQuery 3.3, ect...) Continually added notes into the @package declaration and changelog Maintained and eventually modified the core plugin so much that its hardly even the same plugin anymore. (only 88 of 595 files are original plus 62 new files) To conclude: the natural process of maintaining, debugging and enhancing has produced this 'different new thing'. Therefore: I am considering the following approach (because I do not want to confuse people, this plugin accomplished the same goal but is no longer the same software) Just rename the plugin Honor the original developers by stating that this new plugin is "Based on the classic" Keep the original License intact but in a separate .txt file Keep the authors names listed as "Based on the work of" Add a new GNU LICENSE declaration Explain all modifications in a changelog RE-RELEASE and RE-DISTRIBUTE the plugin under its new name Go into the forum area where the original Plugin was distributed (where people are complaining) and tell them "hey, I had the same problems, so I rewrote this plugin get it here for free, cheers" I now have the following questions and concerns: Is this acceptable and legal use of the GNU License? [I assume yes] Is this considered FauxPas or inappropriate? [I assume no] Should I not even mention the original name of the plugin? [unsure] Is keeping the authors names intact considered correct? [I assume yes] What is an honorable, noble and respectful way to handle naming? [want a professional opinion] How exactly does "Re-releasing GNU software after rewriting or heavy modification" work? [I assume I just rename it and write a declaration that explains the history of the code] Is there anyone with direct and specific experience in this exact same area that can share on the topic? Should the original plugin developers "rise from the dead" and see what I have done- should I be concerned? (I imagine its 50/50, they either see it and say good job carry the torch, or they may become irate) IMPORTANT NOTE: some of the "extensions" for that plugin were not free, users had to pay to download them. I modified, maintained, updated and patches several of those as well. This explains some of my concerns here, there may be money involved on those extensions. These paid extensions also are listed as GNU, version 2 or later An example: I remember when Joomla was Mambo... I feel that this situation might be similar? Research and notes: I have examined the following, which helped me formulate some of my assumed answers. https://opensource.org/licenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ https://odino.org/the-5-golden-rules-when-writing-open-source-software/ https://opensource.guide/legal/ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9493786/gnu-gpl-license-terms-open-source-softwares (Re-)formatting and displaying of software licenses/privacy policy/impressum Can you use only the name/brand of GNU open source software? Law and open-source project Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I'm assuming that you are not seeking to change the license, and so it will remain GPLv3. As long as you've built on the original software, that license still applies. You also need to keep the previous copyright notices, including the names of the original people. Assuming that, everything you're doing is legal, which is what's on topic here. There is some etiquette around forks (which is what you're doing), which would be on topic at the Open Source Stack Exchange. I'm puzzled by your desire to have a different license text. You can't change the license from GPLv3, so that has to stay the same. (If the original has GPLv3 "or, at your option, any later version", you can drop the any other version text if you like.)
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.
I haven't used the extension, but here are the concerns I would have: Does RECAP detect and handle documents filed under seal? Under some circumstances, IIRC, Pacer gives certain attorneys access to documents sealed from the general public. If you access these sealed documents through PACER and thereby submit them to the RECAP public repository, you have violated the Court order sealing the documents and might well be found in contempt. It is not unheard of for a Court to order a document replaced by a corrected version; this is most common when a document was inadvertently filed with information not redacted that should have been. As long as nobody but the parties and their lawyers have accessed it, this can prevent that information from being public. If you log on to PACER and see your client's personal information...you can no longer keep it private by asking the Court for that remedy, because you just submitted it to a public repository. Enjoy your malpractice suit. Does the use of RECAP constitute a waiver of work product protection? Under some (admittedly limited) circumstances, your use of PACER might constitute attorney work product, which would ordinarily be protected from disclosure in a manner similar to a privilege. Revealing your research pattern to a third party could waive that protection.
I cannot speak for civil law systems (Germany) but in Common Law (UK, USA) systems the law looks at substance rather than form. So: Am I allowed to undo the word-wrapping of all the texts and unindent them, as well as performing a new word-wrap on them? Yes Do I have to make sure that it is readable for everyone on every device, and do I have to make sure that accessibility interfaces are used (e.g. for blind persons, which aren't even the target group of my software)? If they are licences (rather than contracts) they must simply be available; this does not mean universally available. Do I have to make sure, that if my application wouldn't even start correctly on a device, that the user is able to start the application in an impossible, absurd, magic or religious way to ensure that he can read the legal texts or is it enough to state it on the website then? It depends if you want the licences to be enforceable by you on the users or if you are simply complying with your disclosure obligations. See What if the user disagreed with the Terms of Service, but still registered on a website?. Do I have to make sure that the rendering of the licenses/privacy policy/impressum is performant (e.g. text rendering and refresh after scrolling takes less than a second)? I already have to include two external libraries with my software to display the texts, otherwise it would not be possible to display texts at all. No - make them wait if you want.
Why do you think Oracle have not been protecting their trade mark? Using a trade mark to describe the product (“Written in JavaScript”, “Seeking JavaScript developer”) is not an infringement and the trade mark owner is under no obligation to, indeed, cannot stop this. Where they are required to defend their trade mark is when it is being used in such a way that there is the risk of confusion that the goods or services could be confused with the trade mark owner’s goods or services. Further, they are not required to defend all breaches, only enough to show that they are actively doing so. Also it is not important that the trade mark be associated with the trade mark’s owner. Do you know who owns the trade mark “Ben &amp; Jerry’s”?
There is language, but not a mechanism, covering this. Section 3(a)(3) of version 4 licenses says If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. If you become aware of a person using your material and attributing you, and you want the attribution removed, you would accordingly notify them (somehow), and they are required to remove the offending material. The removable informations includes: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); ii. a copyright notice; iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
I'll clarify my understanding of your hypothetical. X authors a comment. StackExchange publishes that comment, under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, properly attributed to the original author Y edits that comment. StackExchange continues to publish the comment, still under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, properly attributing the original author, X, but does not give any attribution to Y for their contributions In this scenario, Stack Exchange is properly respecting the license agreement with X. X is still given attribution, and the comment is still CC BY-SA licensed, and it indicates "if changes were made". StackExchange has no duty to X to display who made the changes. Stack Exchange may be failing Y, by not giving them any attribution for their edit. However, edits to a comment are often so minor that they are not copyrightable (deletions, copyediting, link fixing, etc.). If the contribution isn't even copyrightable, it doesn't matter that Y isn't given attribution. Y certainly isn't infringing X's copyright. X is given the required attribution.
I don't think so. While JSON stands for &quot;JavaScript Object Notation&quot;, it doesn't say that. So the term &quot;JSON&quot; isn't infringing on a trademark for &quot;JavaScript&quot;. To sue somebody because of an alleged trademark infringement, one needs to prove that the offender abused a trade name of the suing company in a way to make the public believe the offending company was related to the suing company. Nobody is even trying that by just using a file format. The file structure itself was developed as an open standard, so they can't claim any rights on that. I have not heard about a company claiming rights in file structures recently, because the data is considered the property of the user, not of the company that wrote the program it was created with. And users are often no longer accepting file formats that can only be read by a specific (expensive) application from a particular company. They want to be flexible to change their vendor and keep the data.