The license of Schema.org is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 3.0).
Does this mean that any search engine can use Schema.org to implement structure data?
See the FAQ Under what terms can we re-use this documentation (and schemas, examples, software)?
As noted in our terms of service document, schema.org schemas are made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 3.0). These terms also apply to the supporting documentation on this site and on our blog, as well as to the markup examples used in this site. The software used for our site is also available for opensource re-use under an Apache 2 license. If you have feedback on these terms please get in touch.
Depending on your meaning of "use schema.org", it might be that your search engine doesn’t have to follow the license.
For example, if you parse HTML documents, find Schema.org markup, and interpret it according to the Schema.org definitions, you don’t have to license/attribute anything.
However, if you include definitions/examples (taken from schema.org) on your search engine’s documentation site, you have to license it under CC BY-SA 3.0 and attribute accordingly.
Yes, it means you can use its content, and modify without delete the maker name (or whatever), and share it.
But you can't use it for commercial purpose.
Schema.org is released with the Apache License Version 2.0, you can have a look at it in the development repo: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/sdo-deimos/LICENSE
You can also check What are the real life implications for an Apache 2 license?
Related
I am creating a site under mediawiki. Is there a feature or an extension to know for a version which users have contributed to this version and in what proportion? For example, for the article on new-york in wikipedia, know the list of contributors of this version and in what proportion did they participate?
prop=contributors. See the contributors API doc page for details.
Your question mainly seems to be about Wikipedia, which has a tool for this:
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo
For your specific example, the link is:
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/fr.wikipedia.org/New%20York
The tool, XTools, is open source and may be useful for other MediaWiki installations as well:
https://github.com/x-tools/xtools
I am busy upgrading SMW 1.9.2 to version 2.2. How do I know which version to use of the accompanying extensions like Semantic Forms or Semantic Extra Special Properties?
As you can see at the SMW docs:
Various MediaWiki extensions are available for further extending
Semantic MediaWiki with additional functionality, and some basic
extensions of MediaWiki are generally useful for employing SMW.
Most extensions are not maintained by the SMW Project. Please see the
extension's main page and installation files to find out whom to
contact for support and where to report bugs. Questions related to
these extensions can be discussed on the mailing list or forum for the
extension (where specified), or on the Semantic MediaWiki user mailing
list.
So, in case that you don't find the relation between your SMW version and the version of each extension in the Semantic MediaWiki user mailing list or the forum for the extension, you should look at the official docs for every extension or contact the developers of each extension, as there is not official reference about the relation you're looking for.
Is it possible to extend Media Wiki with semantic services using Apache Stanbol?
The Stanbol Website indicates that "any content repository compliant with JCR or CMIS specifications" can be used. However, I could not find whether this is the case for (Semantic) Media Wiki?
Usually both JCR and CMIS are protocols much more popular on Java environments. As far as I know MediaWiki does not support any of them.
However, you can still use Stanbol via its RESTful interfaces.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am starting to get a small (just me at the moment) web design company off the ground and there is one thing that is a bit fuzzy to me - whether I can legally use open source apps in sites that I built without paying.
Say, for example, that I want to incorporate CKEditor into a custom built CMS on site that I produce. Should I be paying a commercial license to do so?
I am a small startup at the moment and really do not have big bucks to go out buying OEM or commercial licenses. Where is the line between "personal" and commercial when it comes to design?
CKEditor can be used without paying a commercial license. The commercial license is available if GPL, LGPL, or MPL are not satisfactory. The text below is stating that, for companies that cannot use software under an Open Source license for whatever reason, they can still purchase a commercial license.
For many companies and products, Open Source licenses are not an option.
This is why the CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL) has been introduced.
For your use, I would recommend either LGPL or MPL to be safe. The GPL requires all software linked to the GPL code to also be GPL (or a compatible license). This is why it is considered a "viral license" by many companies. The other licenses do not carry this requirement. The LGPL specifically removes it; that is why it is known as the "Library" or "Lesser" GPL.
As far as the line between commercial and non-commercial use, that depends on the software that you are integrating with. It is perfectly fine for someone to pay you to create a site - it does not mean that the resulting work itself is commercial. You are not integrating the editor in your web design services site, so that shouldn't be the criteria you use to decide. You would be integrating it in the site you have been hired to create. If this site itself provides or is a front for commercial products or services, then it's commercial. But again, you do not need to purchase the commercial license if your client is OK with the terms of LGPL or MPL (I don't see why they wouldn't).
CKEditor (previously FCKEditor) can be licensed under GPL, LGPL, MPL, and even a CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL). GPL and LGPL (probably MPL as well) are distribution-based licenses. That is, they only apply when you're re-distributing the software. Although it's not clear from your question, my guess is you just want to 'use' CKEditor in a website design as opposed to incorporating it into website software that you're going to distribute and/or sell. In the use-in-website case, the ASP loophole probably applies to your scenario regardless of personal or commercial use and there's no need to pay for anything or apply any licenses on your website work.
If, however, you turn around and decide you want to try an distribute and/or sell your custom CMS that incorporates the CKEditor (for example, sell it to other website designers that need a CMS), then you must abide by the rules of whichever license you select and pay accordingly if you decide the CDL license is most appropriate for your needs. The CKEditor website has good examples of reasons why you would choose the CDL option.
Have you seen the http://ckeditor.com/license page ? It seems pretty clear it's free for non-commercial use, but you need a license for commercial use.
More generally, it depends on the license of the app in question. Open-source apps are typically free to use, but may place restrictions on redistribution. IF the license is MIT, BSD or Apache you can essentially do what you want providing you keep their copyright notice there. If the license is GPL, the requirement to redistribute your code under a copyleft license too is typically incompatible with commercial use.
You'll have to check the license of whatever you're using, but in general you can use open source stuff for anything as long as you don't claim it as your own.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as just the two licensing models, since open source licenses fall under several other categories. In some cases, you cannot release your code under a different license with an open source library linked to it (like the GPL). In other cases, you can make changes to the open source code and re-release it as closed source (like the Apache License). See this reference for free software licenses and which are okay to link or release with different licenses.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I wrote a library and I would like to make it open-source, but I am afraid of others stealing it and taking ownership of it. I am very new to licensing software.
What should I do and what are the steps in licensing my software.
Well the first step is choosing what licence you want to release your software under. The Open Source Initiative has a useful page listing a lot of them and there's a good comparison on the KDE web site. There are lots of different options - you need to work out what you're happy for other people to do with your code. Are you happy for it to be included with commercial applications without the source code? Modified without changes being contributed back?
Then you just need to work out what the licence requires - you may just need to include a licence.txt file with the software, or apply a comment at the top of each source file.
Find an appropriate hosting site which is happy to use that licence, and you're away.
GNU Library License
Read LGPL.
Alternatives
There are many other licenses from which you can choose.
Application
Usually it is sufficient to include documentation in the header of all source files that refers to the licensing conditions. As well, it is common to include a text file containing information about how the software can be used.
Software Theft
Once publish your software under an open-source license, typically that grants everyone the right to use the code for any purpose they desire. Normally you needn't be concerned because that is the point of releasing the source code. In fact, you want to encourage others to take your software and use it. Something that is given away for free cannot be stolen.
Ownership
The real concern here, in my mind, would be people taking the software and claiming it as their own. It happens (DVD Jon, Microsoft, and SCO to name a few), and there is not much people can do about it.
If your concern is about people branching your software to create other versions, that seems more like cause for celebration. It implies that your software has been well received, so well that other people want to take it in directions that they feel solve a different niche of problems. This should be encouraged.
No matter what happens, though, you will retain ownership of whatever you produce under copyright law (at least in Canada and the United States).
Remember to consult your friendly neighbourhood IT-specialized lawyer for advice.
Custom License
Also, even if you release the source code under an open-source license, it does not mean that that is the only license you may associate with the source code. It is entirely possible that someone will approach you requesting different terms. For example, they might want to create and share a proprietary solution that uses your technology, without having to release their changes to the world. You might choose to offer them a commercial license under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
Be careful, though: third-party contributions donated to your project, under the terms of the open-source license, are not yours to distribute under a different, custom license. If you want the flexibility of creating a custom license, you must have the ability to identify and extract your personal contributions.
If it's open source, you are relying on the honour of the people who use it, whatever form of preamble you put in each file and include with the distro bundle.
You probably want to start with the OSI licensing page.
If you make your code open source, you are explicityly allowing other people to do pretty much anything they want with it, with in the case of GPL some restrictions on what they must do ifv they choose to distribute it. This is not "stealing". If this worries you, don't make it open source.
If you want the source code to remain free but you don't require the software using your library to be free, you should use the LGPL library. Link
Otherwise, if you want the software using your library to be free, go for the classic GPL. Link
If you are afraid people can steal your work, well, maybe free licences aren't for you :-)
Instead of stealing them, they may use your code, enhance it, redistribute it etc. If you don't know much about this philosophy read here
You can start by looking at the GNU "How to use GNU license for your project" page.
However, the whole idea of open-source is sharing your code with other people. If you're afraid of "others stealing it" - keep it under your hat.
When you licence your library you still retain the copyright. The licence governs what people can and cannot do with the library. You can select from many different open source licences. Without knowing anything about how your library is intended to be used, I'm going to make the assumption that it needs to be compatible with a proprietary licence.
MIT
Permit anyone to freely use without restrictions.
LGPL
Permit anyone to freely use provided modifications are made available.
I strongly encourage you to read the terms of these licences.