Why are copyleft licenses not suitable for use in proprietary software?

 They require sharing of the source code, generally in a proprietary software the companies
want to keep the source code closed and any modifications should be released under the
same license. If the source code is freely available anyone can modify and redistribute which
makes it difficult for the proprietary software companies to charge for it.

Why are permissive licenses considered suitable for use in proprietary software? Is it possible for
me to remove the copyright notice from a file licensed under MIT and replace it with my
copyright?

 Permissive licenses do not require sharing of the source code, hence it reduces the risk of
legal issues when combining a open source code with proprietary software
 No, we can’t remove the original copyright notice from a file under the MIT License. We can
add our own copyright notice if we modify the code, but still have to keep the original
copyright notice. We should always give credits to the original author.

Is it possible for me to remove the copyright notice from a file licensed under MPL 2 and replace it
with my copyright?

 No, we cannot remove the copyright notice from a file licensed under the Mozilla Public
License (MPL) 2. We should retain the original copyright notice file under MPL 2. if we
modify the code we can add our own copyright notice file, but keep the original copyright
notice. We should always give credits to the original author

What is derivative work? Give some examples.

 A work is derived from an original or existing work , with changes or additions. A derivative
work is when we make changes or additions to someone else’s work, like modifying
software.

Examples:

 Modified Software: Changing the code of an open-source program to add features.

 Translation: Translating a book or website into another language.
 Combining Works: Merging two open-source programs into one.

What is the main difference between permissive and copyleft licenses?

Permissive Copyleft
Allow the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the We must share the source code, and any
software without sharing the source code modifications should be released under the
same license
Allowed to use under proprietary projects Not allowed to use for proprietary projects

What is the difference between strong copyleft and weak copyleft licenses?
 Strong Weak
Strong copyleft requires the entire code to be open There is no need to share the entire source
sourced code, only the modified files.
High restrictions and obligations Less restrictions and obligation
Modified code must be released under the same Modified code must be released under the
license. same license, but proprietary code can stay
private.
Not allowed to use for proprietary software Allowed to use under proprietary software

What is the difference between LGPL and GPL Licenses?

LGPL GPL
We can dynamically link LGPL libraries with When we statically or dynamically link the GPL
proprietary software without needing to open- code with proprietary code, we should share the
source the proprietary code. entire code as open-source
All modifications to the code must be under GPL. Only modifications to the LGPL code must be
under LGPL.

What is a dual license? Explain

 Dual License - A software is placed under two different license. Mostly, one of the licenses is
open-source, and the other is a commercial (paid) license.
 Dual licensing means giving people two choices to use the same software:
Free option: People can use and share the software for free, by following certain rules.
Paid option: Companies can pay to use the software without needing to share any changes.

What is static and dynamic linking? Explain

 In static linking, the external library is combined directly into the program during
compilation, creating a single executable file that contains both the program’s code and the
library code
 In dynamic linking, the external library remains separate from the program. The program
calls the library at the runtime.

If I modify an Apache licensed library and use it in my commercial software. What are few of the
obligations to be fulfilled?

 We must keep the original Apache License text with the software, even in the modified
version.
 If modifications are made, we must include a notice file stating the modifications made.
 Need to give credits to the original author and include the original copyleft notice file.

Name a few permissive, weak copyleft and strong copyleft licenses and outline some of the main
obligations.

 Permissive Licenses :- MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD

Obligations : 1. Include the license text and copyright notice file.
2. Add a modification notice if changes are made
3. Give credits to the original author
 Weak copyleft licenses :- LGPL (Lesser General Public License), MPL (Mozilla Public License)
Obligations : 1. Add a modification notice if changes are made
 2. Modifications should be released under the same license.
 Strong copyleft licenses :- GPL (General Public License), AGPL (Affero General Public License)
Obligations : 1. Requires the entire project to be open-source
2. when linked with the proprietary code even then the entire code should be open-source
3. If the software is accessed over a network, users must have access to the source code for
AGPL

Describe a few FOSS Licensing cases and explain what obligations were not fulfilled?

Artifex v. Hancom (2017)

 Artifex, creator of the Ghostscript software, licensed it under the AGPL. Hancom, a South
Korean company, used Ghostscript in its software without meeting AGPL requirements.
 Unfulfilled Obligations: Hancom did not provide access to the modified source code when
distributing its software, violating the AGPL’s requirement for source code disclosure

Oracle v. Google (2010)

 Oracle sued Google over its use of Java APIs in the Android operating system, claiming
Google copied and used Java APIs without proper licensing.
 Unfulfilled Obligations: Google used Java without purchasing a commercial license and
without complying to Oracle’s requirements for using Java APIs.

Jacobsen v. Katzer (2008)

 Robert Jacobsen created open-source model railroad software under the Artistic License.
Matthew Katzer used the code in commercial software without following the license
requirements.
 Unfulfilled Obligations:
Attribution Requirement: Katzer failed to give credit to Jacobsen, violating the license's
requirement for attribution.
License Notice: Katzer did not include the Artistic License notice with the software,
breaching another license requirement