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 am starting an open source project on GitHub and would like to use a community-approved package name pattern that is acceptable and want to use a license that's acceptable.
For the package name...I have a registered LLC that I have done the bulk of the work under, but not sure if it's "acceptable" to use my company name in the package for an open source project?
In my mind I have two options:
com.avalutions.projectname.*
or
projectname.*
Does one of these make more sense than the other? Did I miss an option?
What is best practice if I have no other immediate intent for this library other than share it with the community? If I decide to incorporate the project in a cost-based project in the future, can I/should I change my license at that point?
You can use whatever you want though using a registered company name can help with avoiding conflicts down the line. As the developer you are able to release your code under any license or licenses that you want, you can add licenses at any time. It's your code. If your code contains input from anyone else you need to ensure that their license to you is compatible with the license you plan to use or, where it's direct contribution (i.e. not a component or library) then they need to agree to their code being released in that way. There are plenty of successful OS projects out there that you can use as a licensing template.
LLC or personal authorship: That depends who the author is and if the author can re-assign coypright. It can make sense that you want to use your project for marketing purposes for either yourself or the LLC. Decide that on your own.
As there is always one level above projectname, you should also think into that direction:
org.foundation.projectname.*
If you want to create some eco-system around it's probably better if you don't put your own company upfront - but keep it visible.
What is best practice if I have no other immediate intent for this library other than share it with the community? If I decide to incorporate the project in a cost-based project in the future, can I/should I change my license at that point?
From a developers point of view, decide for what you want to go public. Just showcasing or actual development? If you go for development, go open. If you need to go closed in the future you need to get copyright / re-licensing rights for contributions you pick from other contributors.
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
This is not something I want to do myself, but it's a question/problem I can't get out of my head.
If you distribute open source-program/classes/libraries, how can you make sure the user has purchased a license? Would it not be very easy for programmers to just remove the license-part of the product and distribute it or use a pirate-version?
Take Invision Power Board for instance. It is written in PHP (i.e completely open and editable) and you have to buy a license to be able to use it. How can they make this limit? Do they authenticate the forum towards their servers? If they do, would it not be easy to simply remove this function?
Another example that I have even more problem understanding is HighCharts, a JS library to draw graphs. They offer a free version with their name on each graph. If you purchase the product, the label is gone. How do they do this?
I know this question is a bit wide and open, but I am just asking for a way to prevent people from simply editing out the license/blockade? What is the essence in this?
There are no license purchases for true "open source" libraries or programs, because the essence of open source is that the code is free and you can build/deploy it yourself at will.
What you're talking about is commercial software that might use a codebase that is easily visible/editable. It's not marketed as "open source," but the source code is easily accessible and potentially easily modified.
There are various mechanisms for obfuscating or hiding the content of the code that some products would choose to use, which make modifying the code more difficult. For example, there are various ways of pre-compiling PHP code rather than distributing the raw files (see this question for examples).
However, the biggest thing that you lose out on with most software of this sort is support. If you're a serious user of a complex piece of software, especially a business user, you would typically want to know that you have a commercial support plan in place for any critical software. The kind of user that would crack/pirate such software (that is, individuals or small companies) aren't likely to be as significant to the vendor.
On the internet there's a further obvious avenue: if a significant public site were using Invision Power Board, they would soon notice and could demand suitable license (or take legal action).
Ultimately, this kind of abuse is very difficult to prevent if someone is determined enough: you are very much at the whim of your users.
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 I make a (web-based if it matters) game and have the inventory portion of it from an open source inventory program, what do I disclose?
I would say part X came from open source, or I just "hacked" then inventory system and put my game as a front end.
I just don't know where I put that on my website, or do I wait until someone asks? Does this mean my part of the software is also open source? What am I supposed to do?
I'm not sure how to ask it. I want to do the right thing and all.
It depends on the license that the open source inventory program is under. Have you looked into that yet?
This is a good place to start for comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
You have not asked much specific with your question. The general answer is: It depends.
On what does it depend you might then ask yourself. It depends on the usage terms of the software you make use of.
You only have shared so far that the software is "open source". That term does not say much. It could mean you refer to an OSI certified Opensourcetm license, however, you wrote "open source" which might be a different term. Probably you have picked something from github (compare: Can I use the code in a Github project which does not have a license specified?) ?
So unless you do not share which kind of license that is you talk about not much could be said:
If it is a permissive Free Software license, your code can normally stay under it's own license.
If it is a copyleft Free Software license, your code normally is being licensed under the same license.
If it is a compromise license, it depends on the type of work and way of interaction / derivation / usage / packaging.
In any case it always depends on
the concrete licenses for all works in question.
the concrete type of work and way of combining it with your work.
if you plan to go conform with the licensing or you want to exploit it.
You have not specified much of both, so no better suggestion can be given. Also take note that IANAL and this is only some personal opinion of a layman.
And do not wait until someone does something. You should be the active party to find out. That works best by contacting the original author of that component, tell her what you want to do with it and keep the written allowance you get from her with your records. Especially as you are unsure. And the original author has enough power to allow you things even apart from the public visible license btw..
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 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 needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My company (EU-based) is considering to release some parts of our code
under a free software license. We are going to ask lawyers, but firstly
I'd like to ask what problems should we expect when doing that? We are
planning to use LGPL license, mostly because we want to be able to reuse
other people's code in our (closed) software later too.
Edit: We own all the code we want to be released (everything was written
by a single developer, and he actually proposed to opensource the code).
Also we don't care about reusing
this code by our competitors; this piece of code is more or less orthogonal
to what we do for living. We do expect that this code will be improved by others (or at
least spot any bugs), but it is actually good enough for us already.
Thanks for opinions.
Possible problems:
You do not own the rights on all of your own code (e.g. some portion was made by a freelancer but the rights were never properly transfered)
You expect something to happen with your code (e.g. other people to improve it) but it never happens
Your code becomes used in a competing product and you cannot prevent that
You want to withdraw the freedom and find out you can't
If your company wants to keep some control of what is the official code, I suggest you the Artistic License 2.0, instead of LGPL.
I would recommended releasing under LGPL or BSD style license, which does not contain any responsibilities from your side.
Regarding the use of code by other people, again, use only BDS licensed code and you are all set.
If you use the LGPL, contributions from other people can still be done under the GPL, which would prevent you from reusing their code in close-source software. You'll have to watch out for that. Also, even if their contribution is LGPLed, you only have the freedom to not open the source if that code is used in an external DLL or the like.
This is a very rough description, and the implications of that are quite hard to grasp (I don't fully either) and also depend on what kind of software you're developing, so you definitively have to consult a lawyer.
You might also want to look at what Qt does.