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.
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 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.
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.
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
If there is a javascript library that is licensed under a Copyleft license like the GPL, what must I do to use it? Would I have to make my whole website open source just because I used that javascript library?
It seems that this is still a matter of debate. The stance taken by the Free Software Foundation, which holds all of the GPL copyrights and enforces them, is that any code that links with GPL code, whether statically or dynamically, must also be under the GPL. So in this case, yes you would have to open source your project - but only if you were to distribute it at all. Nothing is forcing you to distribute your code.
So I would agree that you're ok with using it. Personally, I wouldn't use any GPL code in a website that sells anything as part of a for-profit company, even though it's probably legal too (it's likely considered the "output" of the code). The realm of free software licenses in regards to web code is still not completely clear, so I try to follow the spirit of the rules when I can.
I'm not a lawyer so take my advice with the grains kilotonne of salt it deserves. From the GPL:
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force.
So I would take this to mean, no, only the used library has to stay under the GPL as per the license. The license stipulates it must be displayed and unchanged, that is all.
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)