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
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 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 want the license be general permissive, but:
You can embed my software in your software, but the source code of my part must be distributed with your product, and keep the license of my part unchanged.
You can change and rename my software, but the history part of the change log must be preserved.
You can using my software in your web service, but there must be a source code download link (of my part) somewhere obvious to see in the web page.
Well, there maybe not an exactly equivalent license, but which license seems most fit do you think?
I don't think a generally used license with all these conditions exists.
Sounds like you want elements of both:
The LGPL - which satisfies 1 and generally has the "my part must be open" philosophy
The Affero GPL, which requires sharing code if the software is used over a network (your point 3)
My advice however would be to select a commonly used license that is closest to what you want. Go to http://opensource.org/licenses/category and check out the "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities"
I'd guess LGPL would be the best fit (it doesn't satisfy your web-service requirements, but that's an uncommon requirement and hard to enforce anyway). LGPL is an excellent choice for libraries where you want the code of the library itself to stay open but don't mind the library being used in a generally permissive way.
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 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 intending to use the Ms-RL for a project on CodePlex, but I'm not sure how far I should go in terms of how I actually use / embed it in the solution.
Simply including the full licence text somewhere in each project is a given, as is appropriate usage in the project properties / assembly meta-tags; but would you go so far as to include the full licence or (more likely) a short statement pointing to the full licence) at the head of every file?
FYI - The complete solution contains an ASP.NET web project and about 6 'normal' class based projects.
You Could just include one file in a folder or somewhere called License.txt which contains the Ms-RL
But thats realy not a programming question. The admin should (must) close this question
In the end I took the GNU GPL type approach:
A copy of the full licence text with each project (licence.txt).
A 'reference' to the licence file (as well as a small blurb) at the top of each code file.
Of course, throwing a bit of text in the top of each code file might be a simple concept but its not a trivial thing to do if you have multiple projects and files. So in the end I whipped up a small tool to do it for me.
Get it here: http://www.morphological.geek.nz/MorphologicalLicenceInserter/default.aspx (99Kb, full source code, released under Ms-RL).
How to use it:
Copy your code to a staging area (I use RoboCopy).
Crank up the Licence Inserter Tool and have it 'embed' a bit of text (which you write once) into the top of every file you want the reference to appear in.
Check or test the end result of the licence embedding process, and you're good to go.
The program automatically 'wraps' your text in the correct commenting syntax for the file type.
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
What are the implications of including a set of visual components released under a Mozilla Public License in a commercial application.
Do I have any obligations?
I've found pretty good analysis on MPL (and others) by Frank Hecker here:
http://hecker.org/writings/setting-up-shop (search for "Mozilla Public License")
This pretty much sums it up:
For MozPL-ed source code considered as
a set of source files, modifications
of the original source files are
considered to also fall under the
MozPL, as are new source files
incorporating extracts from the
original source files. Such modified
or new files are required to be
licensed under the same terms as the
original files, and in particular must
be made freely and publicly available
in source form.
...
Thus an open-source product initially
released under the MozPL may be
extended with proprietary code to
create new proprietary products, as
long as the proprietary code is
separate (i.e., in separate files) and
interacts with the open-source code
using a defined API.
But as usual, read it carefully and consult your lawyers.
The only problem is if you modify the components you must release them under Mozilla Public License as well