Your responsibility: You ensure, guarantee and accept that no content you post or share on or via any of the services (“your content”) violates or violates the rights of a third party, including copyright, trademarks, privacy, advertising or other personal or other rights, violations or conflicts with a duty of confidentiality, para. B example, or defamatory, defamatory or other illegal material. In general, no. We manage all licenses through an authorization process to provide an accepted standard on which licenses are open source, and we list authorized licenses. Be doubtful about the so-called source-ness for licenses that have not gone through the process. To find out why this is so important, also visit the licensing site. The purpose of this document is to enable rights holders to make their work available to the public. Unlike licenses for free and open source software, free cultural works or open content licenses, rights holders will not be able to “double” their work by unlocking the same work under different licenses. This is because they have allowed everyone to use the work as they choose. As a result, rights holders cannot, under different conditions, re-publish it under the guise of copyright or database, since they no longer have a licence.

This creates truly accessible data to develop broad applications and advance the progress of science and art. But what if the licensee does not have copyright in the work? Public works are public property, in the sense of copyright … So can a licensee use a licensing agreement to prevent you from doing what federal law allows? In June 2020, following an application for legatee authorization, OSI officially recognized non-licensing as a license approved in collaboration with the OSD. [25] No. The freedom to use the program for any use is part of the open source definition. Open source licenses do not discriminate fields. How you can probably guess in the meantime whether the owner will win depends on whether you have accepted the license. The cases indicate that if you have clearly shown your agreement, the owner wins as in a Clickwrap license as in the ProCD case. The moral of the story is therefore: Be careful about what you click. The community is working hard to ensure that so-called “open source” things are licensed by the OSI, although some see them as an insert bureaucracy. Many would simply prefer to say that their code is “public domain,” but that doesn`t provide the most important advantage that open source offers: security over the basic freedoms of free software.