-1

I want to use certain piece of software for my commercial project. The software that will be making use of is open source and I will modify the source code to suit my needs.

Say at a later date, the open source software is licensed under GPL version 3, what happens then? Am I allowed to use the original unlicensed version without any implications?

q126y
  • 1,713
  • 3
  • 14
  • 24
  • 2
    [Does a License Change for OSS cover all versions, including previous releases?](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/82131/does-a-license-change-for-oss-cover-all-versions-including-previous-releases) – gnat Mar 03 '16 at 07:27
  • 5
    How can it be open source if it has no license? if you have no license you are not even allowed to use or change it. – CodesInChaos Mar 03 '16 at 08:17
  • 2
    See also: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/26548/what-is-the-default-software-license, http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/276144/using-unlicensed-code, http://www.infoworld.com/article/2615869/open-source-software/github-needs-to-take-open-source-seriously.html – Jules Mar 03 '16 at 10:16

2 Answers2

8

The software that will be making use of is open source

No, it isn't. You said that it has no license. Then it isn't open source. If it has no license that grants you specific rights in addition to the rights given to you by copyright law (which are practically none), then it isn't open source. In particular, you are not allowed to copy it, modify it, distribute it, not even download it, etc. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not even be allowed to run it since running involves copying from disk to RAM; most jurisdictions have thankfully moved away from this ridiculous interpretation, but there may still be some that haven't.

Am I allowed to use the original unlicensed version without any implications?

You never were allowed to use that version in the first place, and you still aren't allowed to use it now, since its (non-)license hasn't changed a bit.

Jörg W Mittag
  • 101,921
  • 24
  • 218
  • 318
  • 1
    One slight correction: if it has been placed on a public-facing web site that offers downloads (eg github) most jurisdictions will accept that there is an implicit license to download. Your remaining points still stand, though. – Jules Mar 03 '16 at 10:04
  • GitHub is a bad example here, because by agreeing to their Terms of Service you explicitly license your code to be downloaded and forked. – Jörg W Mittag Mar 03 '16 at 19:30
4

The use of unlicensed source code is governed by copyright law, which is considerably more restrictive than most software licences. Essentially, a licence grants you rights to source code above what the default legal situation would be. It is often easier and more reliable to pick the later, GPL'd version and abide by the GPL, for which there is ample precedence and advice available, than to use code for which you technically have no rights whatsoever.

Kilian Foth
  • 107,706
  • 45
  • 295
  • 310