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
Related
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
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have developed a PHP library which is a wrapper to our API.
Patents: The services rendered through the API are covered by patents and anyone using the library may be charged subject to usage crossing certain limits. The license must not grant anyone using the library any patent license.
How Free? Although the library is free, can be copied and distributed unmodified under the same name as much as it can be, usage will be charged depending on limits. In the event of non-payment, the services facilitated by the library will be disrupted.
Modifications & Redistribution: Although anyone is free to review, debug & modify the library, it is desired that modifications to the library are not released under the same name or seek to represent the original and intended library released by us.
Included libraries: The library we are providing uses PHPSecLib & SSS(Shamir's Secret Sharing) library by Kenny Millington. PHPSecLib is released under the MIT license & SSS is under GPLv3 or later.
In view of all this, which license should I choose?
Patents:
How Free?
A lot of API libraries are like that. The library is free but the service the API is utilizing isn't. See, for example, Google AdWords API PHP Client. It's Apache licensed which, in turn, is GPL compatible.
Modifications & Redistribution:
That's a problem. The PHP License has a similar restriction and as such it isn't GPL compatible. Of course if you don't care about GPL compatibility...
Included libraries:
The MIT license is pretty liberal and let's you do pretty much anything. GPLv3, however, is not. If you use GPLv3 code your license is going to need to be GPL compatible and with the restrictions you're wanting to impose it sounds like it's not going to be. My recommendation: maybe rewrite SSS? Compared to phpseclib it looks like an extremely small codebase.
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 would like to publish my application, which is AGPL. It can be downloaded from my website. But the archive also contains other libraries with different licenses:
XStream (BSD)
GWT (Apache2)
gwt-dnd (Apache2)
gwt-upload (Apache2)
Commons Fileupload (Apache2)
JDOM (Apache-style)
iText (AGPL)
JFreeChart (LGPL)
JavaMail (JavaMail)
I didn't change any of these libraries, I just use them. What do I have to do?
Do I have to mention the used libraries on my website or in the COPYING file in my application archive?
Do I have to mention the authors?
Do I have to mention all the licenses?
Do I have to provide all the licenses somehow to my users?
Since answering to my question could be legal advice and therefore problematic, is there a project online which looks similar to mine? Perhaps there is an "anonymous" answer to my question?
People answering legal or licensing questions are not trying to be evasive. But it's hard to answer licensing questions in a way that can be as accurate as the terms spelled out in the license itself. Trying to interpret legal text can expose one to liability if one gets it even slightly wrong (even non-lawyers can be held liable).
Many questions about GPL are answered in plain English here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
The Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) covers terms of redistribution. See for example section 4, paragraph 4.
The New BSD License covers terms of redistribution (for both source and binaries) in the second paragaph. That license in particular is quite short, and easy to read.
Do not make business decisions without consulting with a legal professional.
You will have to provide it for all those libraries that require it as per their respective licensing requirements.
You have to read the licenses, and act accordingly.
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 does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We want to implement chat on our website so that users can communicate with each other.
Our general requirements are:
It should be rendered on our web pages, but it could be rendered in an IFrame or something like that. The users of our website are part of the general public, not internal teams, so we don't want them to have to install a separate app.
Users should be able to use their existing account with our website and not have to create a new account for the chat tool. If we partner with someone, like Meebo, we don't want to have to share a significant amount of our user information for partner.
Code under an public license, but preferably not an open-source project using the GPL license, but BSD or MIT license (and probably others) is okay. An inexpensive product with a non-public license may be okay as well.
We want to get this implemented pretty quickly, and we don't really want to build our own solution.
Has anyone worked with or familiar with a solution that would satisfy some or all of these these requirements? Any other ideas/suggestions?
Thanks.
There are quite a few. As for open source try
https://blueimp.net/ajax/
If you need a heavy duty chat server with web based extension look at
http://www.igniterealtime.org
We currently used this internally in a Windows enviornment. We had some issues getting it to work with Active Directory so we went for the mySQL installation.
Why not shell out a few bucks for (sometimes it's cheaper NOT to re-invent the wheel)
http://www.aspnetajaxchat.com
Hope that helps