I have a project which was made under the Creative Commons licence (Attribution-NonCommercial)
Now I would like to upload my code to code.google.com since I have other project living there.
When I create a new project it asks me which opensource licence I want to choose. Choices available are:
apache license 2.0
artistic license/gpl
eclipse public license 1.0
GNU general public licence v2
GNU general public licence v3
GNU lesser general public license
MIT licence
mozilla public license 1.1
New BSD license
"other open source"
When I Select "other open source" there is a link to OSI-approved licenses which takes me to another list of licenses. (link text)
In all these lists the creative commons license is not mentioned while, interestingly enough, the content of the website itself (www.opensource.org) seems to be licensed by a creative commons license.
My question is this:
What license type should I choose in my code.google project in order to "select" creative commons license (Attribution-NonCommercial)?
Creative Commons licences are not normally used for code. They're used for other works, like photos, music, documentation (hence its use on opensource.org), etc.
There are some Creative Commons licences that are very similar to open source licenses, but Attribution-NonCommercial would not be considered open source. In particular, NonComercial violates sections 1 and/or 6 of the The Open Source Definition:
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.
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
(#2 is actually #6, but markdown keeps renumbering it.)
Related
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/debugger/index
https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-driver-samples/tree/master/usb/usbview
For Microsoft's free tools in general, and specifically UsbView (given the code is open source), can I alter the code, built it, and include it my commercial product to use?
I can't give the license agreement for any of the items above, so I'm wondering if it's ok to redistribute.
For the github repository you linked there is a MS-PL license specified, which states:
Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
Anyway, read it all for yourself and if you are still unsure, ask them directly.
i developed some software and i like provide is as open source for private use only. It's should not be allowed to distribute the software in a commercial without my allowance.
What would be the best license for the software? Is there some standard license which fulfill my requirements?
I don't think there is such license. You just want to add a Copyright Notice (all rights reserved).
You want the license to be open-source, but it will violate the definition of "open-source" if you don't allow it to be completely open-source.
opensource.org says:
Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?
Absolutely.
All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open
Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source
software.
However, note that commercial is not the same as proprietary. [...]
Can I restrict how people use an Open Source licensed program?
No. The freedom to use the program for any purpose is part of the Open
Source Definition. Open source licenses do not discriminate against
fields of endeavor. [...]
See these links:
Faq: http://opensource.org/faq#commercial
Licenses & Standards: https://opensource.org/licenses
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 starting to get a small (just me at the moment) web design company off the ground and there is one thing that is a bit fuzzy to me - whether I can legally use open source apps in sites that I built without paying.
Say, for example, that I want to incorporate CKEditor into a custom built CMS on site that I produce. Should I be paying a commercial license to do so?
I am a small startup at the moment and really do not have big bucks to go out buying OEM or commercial licenses. Where is the line between "personal" and commercial when it comes to design?
CKEditor can be used without paying a commercial license. The commercial license is available if GPL, LGPL, or MPL are not satisfactory. The text below is stating that, for companies that cannot use software under an Open Source license for whatever reason, they can still purchase a commercial license.
For many companies and products, Open Source licenses are not an option.
This is why the CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL) has been introduced.
For your use, I would recommend either LGPL or MPL to be safe. The GPL requires all software linked to the GPL code to also be GPL (or a compatible license). This is why it is considered a "viral license" by many companies. The other licenses do not carry this requirement. The LGPL specifically removes it; that is why it is known as the "Library" or "Lesser" GPL.
As far as the line between commercial and non-commercial use, that depends on the software that you are integrating with. It is perfectly fine for someone to pay you to create a site - it does not mean that the resulting work itself is commercial. You are not integrating the editor in your web design services site, so that shouldn't be the criteria you use to decide. You would be integrating it in the site you have been hired to create. If this site itself provides or is a front for commercial products or services, then it's commercial. But again, you do not need to purchase the commercial license if your client is OK with the terms of LGPL or MPL (I don't see why they wouldn't).
CKEditor (previously FCKEditor) can be licensed under GPL, LGPL, MPL, and even a CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL). GPL and LGPL (probably MPL as well) are distribution-based licenses. That is, they only apply when you're re-distributing the software. Although it's not clear from your question, my guess is you just want to 'use' CKEditor in a website design as opposed to incorporating it into website software that you're going to distribute and/or sell. In the use-in-website case, the ASP loophole probably applies to your scenario regardless of personal or commercial use and there's no need to pay for anything or apply any licenses on your website work.
If, however, you turn around and decide you want to try an distribute and/or sell your custom CMS that incorporates the CKEditor (for example, sell it to other website designers that need a CMS), then you must abide by the rules of whichever license you select and pay accordingly if you decide the CDL license is most appropriate for your needs. The CKEditor website has good examples of reasons why you would choose the CDL option.
Have you seen the http://ckeditor.com/license page ? It seems pretty clear it's free for non-commercial use, but you need a license for commercial use.
More generally, it depends on the license of the app in question. Open-source apps are typically free to use, but may place restrictions on redistribution. IF the license is MIT, BSD or Apache you can essentially do what you want providing you keep their copyright notice there. If the license is GPL, the requirement to redistribute your code under a copyleft license too is typically incompatible with commercial use.
You'll have to check the license of whatever you're using, but in general you can use open source stuff for anything as long as you don't claim it as your own.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as just the two licensing models, since open source licenses fall under several other categories. In some cases, you cannot release your code under a different license with an open source library linked to it (like the GPL). In other cases, you can make changes to the open source code and re-release it as closed source (like the Apache License). See this reference for free software licenses and which are okay to link or release with different licenses.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been reading through the CodePlex supported open source licenses, i couldn't quite understand everything, What i am looking for is a License that restrict the use of my source code commercialy.
is there one?
Thanks
Why do you want to do that? It is not in the open-source spirit! Even the GPL allows and even encourages commercial vendors to distribute free (open-source) software for a fee. A large amount of open-source software is produced commercially (many contributions to Linux, GNOME, KDE...), which wouldn't have been possible with such a clause.
[CodePlex is Microsoft's open-source project hosting site: its equivalent of Sourceforge, Google Code, Savannah, Launchpad etc. The website says it supports the following licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. of which the ones starting with "Microsoft" may actually be more restrictive than "open-source".
Let me explain the "three levels" of open-source licenses using Dave Johnson's words:
Level 1: Gimme credit (Apache License, BSD, MIT)
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me credit.
Level 2: Gimme fixes (Mozilla Public License, CDDL, LGPL)
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me the source for any fixes you make to it.
Level 3: Gimme it ALL! (GPL)
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me your entire product's source code.
The first two levels allow companies to make proprietary (non open-source) derivatives from your code; I don't like them. The GPL ("copyleft") forces them to release their source code (only applies if they distribute their product; nothing prevents them from using the software internally for their own use — and that's a good thing). If you want to avoid feeling "ripped-off" by a commercial company "stealing" your code, the GPL is what you should use. They can make improvements to it, but the improvements will be available to everyone.
Note that none of this prevents a company from contacting you separately and getting your code under a non-GPL license — you can charge them a fee to allow them to make a proprietary derivative of your code, if you want. (As long as your code is entirely yours to give away, of course.)
Thanks, if you restric commercial use of the code you will encourage free open source projects that was my initial thoughts but now i will consider going with the Mozilla Public License.
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
What open source licenses are more corporate-friendly, i.e., they can be used in commercial products without the need to open source the commercial product?
I recommend the Apache License (specifically, version 2). It is not a “copy left” license and it addresses several matters that are important to established companies and their lawyers.
“Copy left” is the philosophy of the free software foundation requiring anything incorporating the licensed opens source code to also be licensed as open source. That philosophy is regarded as poison by established companies that want to keep their products proprietary.
Aside from not having “copy left” provisions, the Apache license specifically addresses the grant of rights from project contributors and it expressly addresses the fact that modern companies are typically made up for more than one legal entity (for example, a parent company and its subsidiaries). Most open source licenses don’t address these points.
Whatever license you choose, if you want your code to be “corporate friendly,” in the sense that you want it to be incorporated into commercial, non-open source products, it is essential that you avoid GPL and other “copy left” type licenses. While it would be best to consult with your own lawyer before investing time or money in a project for which this is an important factor, a quick shorthand for licenses that are and are not “copy left” can be found on the Free Software Foundation’s website. They identify which licenses they don’t find meet their standards as “copy left.” The ones FSF rejects are most likely the ones that will be corporate friendly in this sense.
(Although the question didn’t ask this, it is worth mentioning that, with very few exceptions, even GPL and other “copy left” type licenses are perfectly corporate friendly if they are only used internally by the commercial entities and not incorporated into their products.)
Basically, only the GPL requires that the whole product is GPL, and LGPL implies that the parts specific to that library be open sourced. But, for both, the problem arises only when you distribute the application.
For all the other open source licenses, the only common requirement is the publicity (ie. show at some point to the user what open source component / library is used).
After that you have the "no competing commercial product" licenses...
All in all, the most acknowledged business friendly license are IMHO the Apache License, the Artistic License and the Mozilla Public license.
Furthermore, even if Creative Commons is not widely used for software development, some options are business friendly.
Edit: forgot BSD (which is more a license-template than a license) and MIT mentionned by Daniel. It seems to me that their usages are fading away, but there is some license tropism to take in account according to the development language / open source sub-community.
The two most commonly used licenses that allow what you want are the BSD License and
MIT License. (see also the full list of licenses considered Open Source by the OSI).
As a possible alternative to the BSD license you can also use the Ms-PL license (Microsoft public license). Pretty much the same but (arguably) better worded. Additionally, It's got “Microsoft” in its name, which screams “corprate-friendly” like nothing else does. ;-)
I believe that 6 of the 9 licenses on the OSI's list of "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" meet your criterion: Apache, BSD, MIT, Mozilla, CPL, and Eclipse. The Mozilla license and CPL (the Common Public License) have language concerning patents that might make them more attractive to corporations.
See here for more information.
The GNU Lesser General Public Licence is also corporate-friendly and quite often used in libraries. It allows for usage of a certain library but modifications to it should be made public.
By "corporate" I tend to think of internal development, programs distributed only to people that are employed by the same company. In that sense, pretty much all free software licences are "corporate-friendly."
However, in terms of distributing closed-source software that contains free software the only big one (off the top of my head) that is excluded is the GPL. You could embed LGPL, BSD, MIT, Artistic licenced code. The "price" might be having to give credit, but that would be way cheaper than actually writing and debugging the software.
Things can get hazy when you consider licences that try to protect trademarks (Mozilla) or the compatibility of a broader range of software (Sun). Your constraints are not always only related to the distribution of the code.
In summary, if you're unsure you should consult a lawyer.
Ideally I looked for components licensed under the Apache Software License. After that LGPL, BSD and Artistic License are my next preferences.
MIT, Apache and BSD tend to be the most corporate friendly. The least corporate friendly that I have ran across are usually Q Public, GPL and Mozilla...
Wikipedia also has a very useful list that compares all the free software licenses. If you have a green box on the right ("Release changes under a different license"), I think that's all you need.