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 writing a javascript library and i am thinking to give it under triple licensed GPL3, MIT, BSD.
Also i found an Apache 2.0 open source project which i would like to include it in my project.
According to http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Apache 2 software can be included in GPLv3 projects, so my project's GPL3 version is compatible.
Can i include Apache 2.0 code in MIT and BSD project, so the final project can be compatible with the triple license GPL3, MIT, BSD?
i found this site
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
which explains realy simple which code can be used in which projects.
As i see, i can include MIT, BSD and Apache2.0 code and produce my GPL3 project.
But i cannot use Apache2.0 code to produce MIT or BSD projects.
The compatibility is only one way.
So if i want to make my project multilicensed and permissive compatible i have to publish it under Apache2.0/GPL3 licenses.
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
If my app uses library A - GNU license, library B - BSD license and library C - MIT license, and I want to pack these libraries together with my app in one zip file, what is the preferred way to mention the licenses? Do I write a license.txt that is a list of the three libraries and their respective license texts?
what is the preferred way to mention the licenses? Do I write a license.txt that is a list of the three libraries and their respective license texts?
It's common you create a file called COPYING containing the packages licensing first and then you list those parts you use (this software contains components under their own license). Exemplary I find the Licenses compiled by The XFree86 Project, could give some inspiration. Additionally there is Maintaining Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for Developers.
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
Let's say we are planning to use an open source project under GNU Lesser General Public License to develop a cloud-based social networking system (a web-based system having horizontaly scalable databases as back end). The completed application will be closed sourced.
So, if we use the source code licensed under GNU Lesser General Public License, or even if we modify it, are we allowed to do that (ie. are we violating the license if our completed product will be closed source.)
The completed application will be commercial based - BUT we are not selling any packaged product - and we will make profits by advertising or download apps, for example.
Yes, you can use modified sources for GPL or LGPL software in your cloud service. You only need to publish your modifications if you distribute the binaries.
This "loophole" is closed by the AGPL.
Yes, if your code is just linked to LGPL software, it can be distributed under a privative license.
However, if you do any modification to the LGPL software you must distribute it in source form if you distribute it at all. This does not include the part of your code that is only linked to (but not compiled together with) the LPGL software. On the other hand, if you do not distribute it at all, you do not have to distribute the sources. This is what some websearch companies do with their modified versions of the linux kernel, and this may be your case if your application is a kind of software-as-a-service application.
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 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 currently looking at Prestashop, that uses an OSL 3.0 open source license. That license requires you to share the code even with users (so it plugs the famous "asp hole").
My question regards to it's plugin architecture for modules. Would the OSL 3.0 license apply also to modules, or it wouldn't be considered part of the distribution.
I've already read the license and searched for an explicit answer, but I haven't found it yet. Any insights?
Thanks,
Modules that are included in the main Prestashop distribution are subject to the same license, however any third-party modules or modules developed by Prestashop but not released in the main distribution can be subject to different license terms.
Each module can be written by a different developer/company and is subject to their own license terms. Modules can be free or commercial. Modules can be released under an Open Sourcee License (not necessarily OSL 3.0) or a bespoke license, a commercial license (could be perpetual or annual etc) or I've even seen case with no license details specified.
Also, modules do not have to be acquired from or purchased through the official marketplace they have developed (where Prestashop take a cut of the profits). They can be acquired direct from the software vendors, and installed easily by uploading a zip file.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Are there any cross-platform (only interested in Windows and OS X) IMAP libraries which I can use from C++? Preferably open source as well.
I am currently using the IMAP library from Chilkat, but this is Windows only.
I've found libEtPan and VMime and just wondered if there were any others I could look at to compare.
Another good choice can be cURL library which is C library but it has C++ bindings - cURLpp.
The best thing is that it is licensed under the MIT license which perfectly fits for the commercial use or a non-opensource projects.
What about VMIME?
It has all my favorite things in a library:
Free, as in free beer
Free, as in free speech (Open Source also)
Regularly updated (very important)
Decent (though not great) documentation
Portable
Other alternatives are libetpan (a C language library) and Mailcore (a C++ wrapper for libetpan)
Although a bit dated since it's development has stopped being open-source, you can check the UW-IMAP toolkit. However, its primary author continues development of the toolkit under the name Panda-IMAP and makes it available to anyone who wishes to donate for the development of the project.