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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been attempting to find a location from which to download Fuse, but all the links in the Red Hat site seem to indicate that the freely downloadable version of the product is available "for development purposes only". Is there a download location that clearly identifies it as an open source version?
JBoss Fuse is open source licensed with the ASL 2.0 license.
You can download and use the product for free for development purpose.
But if you want to use it for production, then you need a subscription
Claus, could you clarify this a little?
I was under (false?) assumption that ASL2.0 means that use of the software is free. Free regardless of if its for development or production use. At least http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html points me in that direction. How can JBoss fuse be ASL2.0 and at the same time forbid use for prodution?
It would also help if I could find out clear license terms somewhere. If I look at http://www.jboss.org/products/fuse or https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/JBoss_Fuse/ I cannot see the license specification. Where can I view the actual license terms of Jboss Fuse?
JBoss Fuse is open source licensed with the ASL 2.0 license.
You can download and use the product for free for development purpose. But if you want to use it for production, then you need a subscription.
What you ask about is free software. That is a totally different thing than whether or not the source code is open or closed.
According to my understand of this document, the "open source versión" not exist.
Must I install Apache CXF, Apache Camel, Apache ActiveMQ, and Apache Karaf individually?
https://www.redhat.com/resourcelibrary/whitepapers/jboss-enterprise-middleware-community-to-enterprise-whitepaper
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 am using Cygwin to compile a third party application called iPerf.exe that I am using as a plug-in to my application. We are planning to distribute this application to our users. I know that GNU licence agreement of cygwin says that if you are planning to compile your application using cygwin then please be ready to make your code open source.
I am not compiling our entire application using cygwin. I using cygwin because we are using iperf.exe which was written for Linux. I had to change some of the source code and re-compile it in Windows to produce windows executable.
Here is my question:
Under GNU licence, do I have to release the iPerf.exe code that I have changed or I have to release the entire application code? I would not be allowed to release entire application code so I hope releasing my changes to iPerf.exe should be suffice.
If your iperf.exe is linked against cygwin1.dll, then you must either release it under an OSI-approved license (as well as providing the sources for Cygwin itself if you distribute that too) or purchase a license buyout from Red Hat, as described here.
As for your application which uses iperf as a "plugin", that depends on the connection between the two; you'll need to be more specific to get a clear answer.
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 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to release a software project, essentially a web site, and put it up on GitHub. I used several open source libraries (PHP) to create this web site. How do I provide proper attribution to the other libraries?
My goal is to invite other developers to contribute to the project, alter the code for their own use, run the altered web site from their own domain, and ideally improve the value and functionality for all. I do not want other developers to ever sell the code, nor sell their version of the code. What license do I use for my project?
I think you need to do the following:
upload your source code to an online public repository and add a
license.txt file in your source that contains the license
information.
You can additional disclaimers/credit on your web site for the third-party scripts used within your source.
Regarding the license to select, I think it varies depending on the third-party script licenses..
For instance:
If the third-party script you use is released under GPL license, then you also have to release it under GPL, but I am not saying all licenses require this. Its just what a GPL license requires.
GPL is the most common license to be found.
But you might wanna take a look at Creative Commons Licenses too.
EDIT:- I just found some thing that may help you choose your License see below link:
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
EDIT #2:- According to my research, and Creative Commons. CC licenses are NOT recommended for Softwares.
Helpful Links
http://opensource.org/faq
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm releasing an application I wrote as an open-source project by creating a public source-code repository. I use a third-party library which is also open-source and freely redistributable. I'm not versioning the third-party library, but should I include it in my repository for the convenience of those cloning the repository or should I expect them to download the third-party library on their own? To be clear, I'm not asking if I should version the third-party code or if I can redistribute it, but whether it is standard practice to include third-party source code as a convenience.
Usually you don't distribute third party libraries with your source code.
Try to download some free software package and you'll see it's common practice to tell in the INSTALL or README file the dependecies, so the user can download them from their original source.
You have to read the license for the code in question. If it's GPL, you have to make it available, but you don't have put it into the repository. If it's BSD, you just have to give credit in your released code. In any case, including it in a repository separate from your project is a nice thing to do, simply for the sake of furthering the goal of open source, although that's far from standard practice.
If both use the vcs git then you could make the external library a git submodule. This is usually handled by package managers though.
One solution is to publish yours as Maven artifacts, synced to central, and simply depend on their artifacts. Then the source issue takes care of itself. That, of course, assumes that they publish maven artifacts.
Many projects indeed do well by simply linking the artifacts published in (various) Maven repositories.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Lets say that I am writing a program that supports plugins and I write one plugin that has a reference to a assembly(.net) that is licensed under LGPL, must I now make the whole project open source and under LGPL?
The main difference between the LGPL and the GPL is that the LGPL does not impose any licensing requirements between modules that can be interchanged by the end user.
So as long as the end user can substitute a different but compatible version of the third party assembly, and as long as you obey the other requirements of the LGPL (like giving appropriate attribution if you're distributing that third party assembly) you can license your stuff however you like.
That depends on the nature of the reference. If "having a reference" is similar to "linking a library", you are not forced to license your software under the LGPL. That is where the LGPL and the GPL differ.
Consulting a lawyer is the only way to get complete, accurate advice of this nature.
That being said, you should be fine, provided you leave the LGPL code in the indepdendant, .NET assembly. If you use the code directly within your project, you may run into other issues, but as long as the .NET assembly is left as-is, and just used by your project, you shouldn't have to open up your code (although you do need to follow the other restrictions of LGPL - mainly distributing the appropriate license files, providing access to the code for the assembly, and using proper attribution).
Sorry this thread is very old. But still couldn't find it very clear. So here is my answere
When a library or framework is LGPL , you are free to use the libraries in your commercial project (Yes. you can sell it). You don't need to make your code opensource.
You have to make the code opensource only if:
1. you change the code of library/framework. or
2. You link the libraries statically. (If you link dynamically there is no need to worry about. In windows you can use .dll files to link dynamically)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am going to create my first open source project and I am trying to decide where to host it google code or codeplex. It seems to me codeplex has a better set of community features and google code has real svn and a version diff tool. What has been a deciding factor for where to host your project?
For me the number one feature is getting my code in and out of the repositories, which is super easy with google code, and even assembla (altho I'm not up to date with what the latest terms of usage with assembla are). Codeplex leans towards TFS which is hard to use, but you can make it work with SVNBridge and tortoise, which is easier.
Once you worked out getting code in and out, it really comes down to personal preference.
Do you want a Wiki?
Do you want an issue tracker?
Do you want to have automated builds?
Do you need integration with third party tools (like fogbugz or trac)?
For Task Coach, I started with Sourceforge and Yahoo groups for mailinglists. When we added translations for Task Coach, we also started using Launchpad because of its support for editing translations via the web. I considered moving Task Coach to Launchpad completely (I like Bazaar) but Launchpad does not offer website hosting, while Sourceforge does. Also, Sourceforge offers multiple version control systems these days, including Bazaar. At the moment, I'm considering to use Uservoice to allow Task Coach users to vote for new features.
I guess these are the features I have been/are looking for in open source hosts:
Project website hosting
Support for end-user downloads
Source code version control
Bug/feature request/support request tracker
Support for editing translations
Mailinglists