如何在不违反许可的情况下分叉开源项目?

发布于 2024-12-07 12:11:14 字数 212 浏览 1 评论 0 原文

我想分叉 Maven NSIS 插件 http://mojo.codehaus.org/nsis- BitBucket 的 maven-plugin/index.html。 Codehous 项目似乎已经死了。我应该如何行为来创建它的合法分叉?

I want to fork Maven NSIS plugin http://mojo.codehaus.org/nsis-maven-plugin/index.html at BitBucket. Codehous project seems to be dead. How should I behave to craete legal fork of it?

如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群

发布评论

需要 登录 才能够评论, 你可以免费 注册 一个本站的账号。

评论(2

囚你心 2024-12-14 12:11:14

不幸的是(1)没有声明它拥有什么许可证,但是之后从 svn 检查他们的代码,文件 NsisCompileMojo.java 中的标头显示:

 * Copyright 2008 Codehaus
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Apache 许可证相当宽松;您可以轻松地分叉您的项目,但需要保留原作者的原始版权声明。更多详细信息可以参见维基百科(2)(apache.org 目前似乎已关闭)。

但长话短说:叉子。

编辑:还有一个提示:如果您仍然有法律疑问,自由任务组(欧洲自由软件基金会的一个机构)将能够为您提供帮助:http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/

Unfortunately(1) doesn't claim what licence it has, but after checking out their code from svn, the header in the file NsisCompileMojo.java says:

 * Copyright 2008 Codehaus
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

The Apache licence is quite permissive; you can easily fork of your project, but need to keep the original copyright notices of the original authors. More details can be found a Wikipedia(2) (apache.org seems to be down at the moment).

But long story short: Fork.

Edit: One more hint: The Freedom Task Force, an institution of the Free Software Foundation Europe, will be able to help you if you still have legal doubts: http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/

爱的十字路口 2024-12-14 12:11:14

像往常一样:我不是律师,如果您需要适当的法律建议,您确实应该找一位律师。其他任何事情都只是猜测。

我没有在任何地方看到指定的许可证,这使得很难做到:如果没有指定许可证,则意味着您的权利非常有限,几乎在世界各地。不:公开可见的源代码不会自动改变这一点!

因此,除非您可以联系原作者来为您澄清这一点,否则您可以很容易地认为它是一个闭源项目。

As usual: I am not a lawyer and you should really get one, if you want proper legal advice. Anything else is just guesswork.

I don't see a license specified anywhere, which makes it hard to do: if no license is specified, that means that you have very limited rights, almost everywhere in the world. And no: the source code being publicly viewable doesn't automagically change that!

So unless you can contact the original authors to clarify that for you, you can just as easily assume that it is a closed-source project.

~没有更多了~
我们使用 Cookies 和其他技术来定制您的体验包括您的登录状态等。通过阅读我们的 隐私政策 了解更多相关信息。 单击 接受 或继续使用网站,即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
原文