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'm in the thought process of making my application open source. Before considering the licensing options, I would like to consider the below scenario and get your opinions.
My app is using some paid components for a module to work. That is, I'm paying for a developer license and a server license for the development and deployment of that module. Is this a showstopper in making my app as an open source application?
Yes the application you make would still be Open Source, because this is your own code so you can choose what you wanna do with it.
The way I look at it is, when you design an Open Source application that is running on Windows, it is Open Source even though it uses some code from Microsoft that is not Open Source.
And you can also have an application that is Open Source, but that you charge money for.
If someone is experts on this field then please correct me if I am wrong :)
I use this app to understand open source license terms (they have proprietary license too): https://enterprise.dejacode.com/license_library/
Hope it helps.
Related
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 was evaluating ZK framework, which is LGPL and it's spring plugin zk-spring is GPL.
If i develop a system with different application like domain, web(zk, zk-spring), web-services. Now When I deploy these application on the client machine, would i have to also provide all the source code of my applications to the client? I also want to keep proprietary of code to myself.
Or Should i buy license and can own my application code and don't have to use the GPL.
I am not clear so, please answer my all concerns and issue involved here.
looking forward to hear from you soon and thanks in advance.
If you wish to distribute any work that is derivative of, or contains sufficient protectable expressive content taken from, a work covered by the GPL, you must also distribute the source code of that work, even if you wrote it. There really is no better answer possible. If you need an opinion that you can legally rely on, consult an attorney.
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'm working on a web based ladder system for a game. It is very game specific and I want to make the project open source so the community can give back, contribute and make the experience better for everyone. However at the same time I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites because the purpose of the website/project is to unify the community under one roof. So my question is: what is the best license to use to make that possible?
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites ...
This really misses the point of Free Software, or as the FSF puts it, it's open source but not really Free Software. Despite my tone, I'm not here to lecture you, I'm simply pointing out that people are not likely to help if the project has this kind of restriction.
However, if you change that to:
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites without contributing any modifications they make back to the project ...
Then the GNU Affero General Public License might be appropriate; it prevents people from modifying your website unless they publish their changes under the same license.
If you still insist on your original restriction, then no open source license will help you, since most of them are about being Free Software, not just open source. You're going to have to write your own license, or modify an existing one.
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 aware of other solutions like System.Data.Sqlite or Firebird through Dblinq, but since nothing beats SQL Compact Edition (integration-wise) with Visual Studio, I would like to use it and to know if its license allows its usage in Open Source projects.
Thanks.
One point to bear in mind is that you would presumably not be distributing the source code for the Compact Edition. This might make your project fail some definitions of "Open source" if the Compact Edition is closely integrated with the rest of your code. This in turn might make it inelligible to be hosted on certain FOSS web servers (I'm thinking of Google Code) and might result in your prtoject getting a bad name amond more zealous FOSS supporters.
IANAL, and I do not know if the EULA is compatible with every open source license.
But, as long as you sign up for redistribution rights you should be fine to redistribute it with an open source project.
As long as you don't need replication with a big MS SQL Server you are fine with SQL CE.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
Let's say I have an open project called Some Project. Would you recommend hosting the project site under someproject.com or someproject.org, and why? I realize that .org suits an open source project better, but I'm afraid that on longer term, I may want to (cough...) start making money out of it, and .org would become misleading, while moving to .com could cause troubles in the sense of SEO and promotion. I hope someone could shed some light on this dilemma.
The definition of .org (from various sources) is "top-level Internet domain used by associations and non-profit organizations mostly in the U.S. and Canada." So, this could become misleading (not that people don't do it). I would follow the lead of WordPress, where .org is the Open Source project and .com is the commercial entity.
Register both, use the .org for the open project, save the .com for if/when you need it.
Register both. Use .org as the main domain, .com is supposed to be for commercial ventures but you wouldn't want it to be taken by a domain squatter.
Depends what the project is. For example, .fm is often used for music sites.
Either way, if your project rocks, it doesn't matter.
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
Years ago I released a program called Banshee Screamer Alarm and at the time it included the full source code, "for educational purposes only." You couldn't extend it to make your own version, but you could learn from it. It actually helped somebody fix a bug in wine.
If I release more software like this (open source, but copyrighted and non-free), are there any legal thorns that I should know about? Are there any suitable licenses for this purpose?
I don't see any problems, but then I'm not a lawyer and have no real interest in proprietary software licenses. You should be able to just ship source without trouble, much like the old days of interpreted BASIC. There were plenty of proprietary programs distributed that way.
However, quite a few people would appreciate it if you'd call it "source included" or something like that rather than "open source". The Open Source Initiative has a clear meaning for "open source", and you aren't coming anywhere near their definition.
Adding the source for educational purposes only sounds good to me. Microsoft did similar with their Shared Source initiative.
You might want to avoid the open source moniker though, if you don't use an OSI approved license.