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.
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 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 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.
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 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Sometime ago the question Ms-RL - Explanation needed was posted. The only answer given relating to section 3A was:-
3(A) Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code
from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide
recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this
license, which license will govern that file. You may license other
files that are entirely your own work and do not contain code from the
software under any terms you choose.
Translation: For each file that uses files under the Ms-RL, you need to
provide the source and a copy of the license.
What is not clear to me is the definition of the word file. If I make use of a DLL licensed under Ms-RL (such as a visual component/control) and I ship my DLL/EXE along with their DLL and their source code is that sufficient to satisfy the license? If I now zip the files or compose an MSI do I now have to include my source code too as the zip/MSI file contains the binary of their DLL?
If you're shipping the component itself, just make sure that the source of it is made available "somewhere" and it's properly defined the license being used (in this case the Ms-RL), just a txt somewhere saying "the component can be found at xxx"
It's not a viral license so using this doesn't affect the rest of your project
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 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
Does anyone know of a reference that explains the different open-source licenses in easily understandable, non-legalese terms?
Specifically I'm looking for information about what it means to me when I'd like to use and redistribute some (open-source) library with my own products, e.g. something like this:
a library distributed under license X
can be modified, used and redistributed without restrictions, even in commercial, closed-source products
a library distributed under license Y
may not be modified, but can be redistributed with a commercial, closed-source products
it is required to mention the fact that a product makes use of that library (e.g. by adding some license file, etc)
a library distributed under license Z
may only be used by projects which are also distributed under the same license
This is going to be a big grave dig, but after reading this question I can't help but to slip this link here:
http://www.tldrlegal.com
^Lookup any software license summarized in plain english (What you can, cannot and must do).
There's a list there, with a FAQ: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
In your case, I think that X=public domain, Y=some commercial licenses, Z=GPL
(modified BSD is similar to Y, but you are allowed to modify them).
The licenses themselves are fairly readable.