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
guys, could you please explain what are restrictions for commercial redistribution for these licenses (Apache , BSD , GNU GPL , GNU LGPL , MIT , MPL).
best regards.
In short - the Open licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT) allow just about any type of use, commercial or not, with virtually no strings attached (or control for you over your potential competitors or people who want to 'cheat'), whereas the Free Licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) generally require you to always provide some rights to the source code to whomever you distribute your release to and this license limits your commercial options.
However above is a gross simplification - and this is far too big a question to be answered here - and to a some extend depends on the country you live in and the countries you do business with.
One of the most authoritative works is http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm - Lawrence Rosen's book Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (ISBN 0-13-148787-6). You are after Chapter 10 - http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch10.pdf -- choosing an open source license. If that is too heavy http://4cff.org/default/index.cfm?LinkServID=C502415F-0288-0063-B060110EE1599F24&showMeta=0 and http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html are much shorter and easier to digest - but are not quite as thourough.
Another good source of information is http://www.opensource.org/.
Thanks,
Dw.
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
Can I use MySQL community edition in a commercial product for free?
The product is not open source.
Do I need to acquire some kind of license or not, in order to use MySQL?
Thanks
MySQL is licensed under the GPL with the linking exception. That basically means that you can link your own program against MySQL libs without licensing it under the GPL as well.
But you have to obey all other terms of the GPL, such as providing the license info for MySQL, providing the source code of it (and more, see GPL license text).
Depending on your product this can either be acceptable or you want to buy a license to get rid of the GPL requirements.
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 needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am new to the world of open source so please answer accordingly!
I have seen many licenses in use, like GPL, MIT, Apache license. Of course I don't want to be a lawyer, but having at least a basic knowledge of all these would be helpful.
So where do I start? Do I simply read up these licenses? Or is there a book/ website out there that explains all this?
While it's probably not going to help much, I recently had a look at the page Open Source Licenses by Category over at www.opensource.org. Take a look at the category "License that are popular and widely used or with strong communities". I think that would be a good starting point.
While you'd probably have to be a lawyer to really understand and know all implications of every license, you can grasp the main differences by looking at them. Not all license texts are as long as that of GNU's GPL, so don't be afraid to look at them. (The MIT license is a good example. You can read it in about 1 minute's time.)
(The GNU GPL, btw., is considered by some to be the most restrictive open-source license, when it comes to using software in a commercial product. I think that was the initial reason why they came up with the GNU LGPL.)
Some more pointers to other questions here on Stack Overflow:
Corporate-Friendly Open Source Licenses (asked Aug 26 2008) -- mentions the Apache license
Which license should I use for my open source project (asked May 20 2010) -- mentions the GNU LGPL
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 would like to publish my application, which is AGPL. It can be downloaded from my website. But the archive also contains other libraries with different licenses:
XStream (BSD)
GWT (Apache2)
gwt-dnd (Apache2)
gwt-upload (Apache2)
Commons Fileupload (Apache2)
JDOM (Apache-style)
iText (AGPL)
JFreeChart (LGPL)
JavaMail (JavaMail)
I didn't change any of these libraries, I just use them. What do I have to do?
Do I have to mention the used libraries on my website or in the COPYING file in my application archive?
Do I have to mention the authors?
Do I have to mention all the licenses?
Do I have to provide all the licenses somehow to my users?
Since answering to my question could be legal advice and therefore problematic, is there a project online which looks similar to mine? Perhaps there is an "anonymous" answer to my question?
People answering legal or licensing questions are not trying to be evasive. But it's hard to answer licensing questions in a way that can be as accurate as the terms spelled out in the license itself. Trying to interpret legal text can expose one to liability if one gets it even slightly wrong (even non-lawyers can be held liable).
Many questions about GPL are answered in plain English here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
The Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) covers terms of redistribution. See for example section 4, paragraph 4.
The New BSD License covers terms of redistribution (for both source and binaries) in the second paragaph. That license in particular is quite short, and easy to read.
Do not make business decisions without consulting with a legal professional.
You will have to provide it for all those libraries that require it as per their respective licensing requirements.
You have to read the licenses, and act accordingly.
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.