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 that I want to develop an app using .Net and Microsoft UccApi. I'd like to make it open source. Am I eligable to do it? What type of open source license must I use? What limitations must I keep in mind?
Open source licenses impose constraints on the way in which a given software can be distributed. The fact that you are using a Microsoft based product to develop your software does not pose any particular restriction on the distribution of software that you are developing. You are free to do as you want. To choose an appropriate license you must consider the restrictions that are associated to each specific license and choose whatever option is best for you. I'll give a few rough examples just to give an overview:
Do you want just to be recognized for developing the software and you do not expect anything else? It is fine if someone takes your software, modifies it without distributing the improvements and the sells it as a commercial software? Then evaluate BSD or MIT or Apache licenses.
Are you fine if someone embeds your software as a statically linked library, even in a commercial project, but you would like all improvements to your original software to be distributed back to you? Then evaluate a LGPL license.
You want to "contribute to the community" and you would like that evey work derived from your software should be a "community contribution too". In this case choose a GPL. Every software derived from yours must be open sourced as well. Note that this does not prevent someone from selling the derived software when he publishes the source code.
If you don't want in any case that your software could be part of a commercial product then you must explicitly disallow it in your license.
Related
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 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
I'm looking to start a open source project with a friend and we were discussing open source licenses but neither of us really understand the vague and unclear terms and conditions of the licenses.
We are fine with:
Distribution
Creation of derivative works
But do not want:
Sale of our work
Sale of derivative works
Use of our work without attribution in any form
Can you guys recommend any Open Source licenses that fulfill those criteria?
It isn't possible to put this restriction on your code and still count as "open source", at least under the widely accepted open source definition.
The relevant paragraph:
Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale.
i.e. if you want to count as open source, you have to allow others to sell your software either in its current form or as a derived / aggregate work.
If you want to be open source but still want a commercialisation option, one option is to release your software under a dual license, with one license being copyleft (like the GPLv3) and the other being a proprietary license. Others can then use your software under the terms of the GPL, but if they want to incorporate your software into a closed source software product they will need to buy your proprietary license.
Why not this one:
We are fine with:
•Distribution
•Creation of derivative works
But do not want:
•Sale of our work
•Sale of derivative works
•Use of our work without attribution in any form
Take a look at CC-BY-NC-SA, that is the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. (full Creative Commons Legal Code here) The Choose a license page too recommends the same with your requirements: No commercial uses, but with (attributed) modifications allowed.
Section 4.c. of this license specifically states:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
(Section 3 deals with copying/adapting/distributing etc.)
No matter which license you choose, I strongly recommend going through the Creative Commons FAQ.
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
My company is offering a SaaS solution which is accessible via a web browser. We are using external libraries/frameworks like jQuery or the Zend framework in our solution. Do we have to make the different licenses from this libraries/frameworks accessible to our customers, for legal reasons? Do we have to mention the external libraries/frameworks on a credits page, or is it legal just to provide our service without giving credits to other libraries/frameworks?
Can we still provide our service under our proprietary license (don't know if it makes sense)?
Or software is not downloadable, but we are shipping whole appliances or virtualmachines with our solution.
Each license will have its own requirements, but most permissive licenses (such as the MIT and Apache licenses) don't require you to specifically mention them or their license to your application users. Instead they require that you maintain distribute the license and copyright information if you distribute the source code. In addition, the Apache license in particular requires that you provide a notice in any source file that has been modified stating such.
I have seen library licenses (see the second requirement), however, which specifically require attribution within a linking application.
I am not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer if you have doubts concerning licensing.
Often frameworks have this kind of information on their website. If not, check the wording of the license itself and its website. Different licenses have different requirements. Copies of the GPL and LGPL, for example, should be distributed with the source code they cover.
As for providing your product under a proprietary license, again, it depends on the license. If you were to make use of a 3rd party library as a part of your product, and that library was covered by the GPL, your product must also be distributed under the GPL. However, if it was covered by the LGPL you would not have that restriction and you could license your product how you please.
Look here for jQuery: http://jquery.org/license/. I think you will want the MIT license (although I am not familiar with the details, I think it will suit you better than the GPL).
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 developing an application which requires a third party framework which is under an Eclipse Public Licence (EPL). The application is a server-side commercial application which will be running on my servers. The EPL software is distributed as binaries (jar files). I'm only using the packages and am not making any contribution, i.e. not making any changes to the source.
Under EPL I believe I'm not a "Contributor" nor am I making a "Contribution". But if I want to make my software available to be installed at some offsite server I'm having trouble with REQUIREMENTS of EPL:
b.iv - "states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange".
Does this mean that if I where to modify the source code of the 3rd party framework for my own purposes I would need to distribute all of my source code?
EPL is supposed to be commercially friendly but it doesn't seem that way to me.
The way that I understand your question is "If I change part of the framework, do I need to redistribute all of the source code of my application, even the parts that aren't part of the framework?". If that is the proper interpretation of your question, then no, you do not need to distribute all the code of your application.
EPL is a weak copyleft license, however it is a non-viral copyleft so it only applies to the source of what was EPL'ed, not to what you build on top of the EPL project. Thus, it does not require that you distribute the source to your application, only the changes made to the framework itself. The terms of the EPL only apply to the source of the library, not the source of your application. Your application's code will governed by its own license (as you are not redistributing it, ostensibly a simple "I own all the rights to this code" license).
Basically, as long as you are not using a library governed by a fully copyleft license, then you should be fine.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Do not take this as real legal advice.
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
This is a point that has always confused me about open source software. Normally, I write everything from scratch. What I'm trying to find out is what licenses allows me to do this?
Stay away from the GPL (LGPL is okay) and you won't have any problems. If you want to include GPLed packages in your application, things get tricky. BSD and MIT style licenses will get you the fewest obligations. In general, find the software package you want to use and read the license. They're usually pretty straightforward about what is and is not acceptable to do.
Why would you want to do more work? Of course you should. All you have to do is redistribute the OS technology source with your app (I am not a lawyer, but thats how I understand it).
The assumes
1) You are talking about an established open source solution, like hibernate, that you can reasonably assume works well.
2) The product you are developing is not using the open source technology as the 'secret sauce' that is going to make you money. Else you might have to open source that special part of your app.
If the software actually fits what you're trying to do, then yes it does cut down on development time. If the software mostly fits what you're trying to do you may end up spending more time trying to work with it rather than solving the problem it's meant to solve.
I am not a lawyer, so be sure to run a license past legal council if in doubt
As far as licensing goes, there are a number of licenses that allow you to incorporate the software into your commercial application. Most of the time as long as the license isn't a Copyleft type license (i.e. GPL) you can distribute the software as is. If you have to make changes that get distributed with your application, some licenses will requires the source also be distributed with it and an indication of what's different from the core project.