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 currently looking at Prestashop, that uses an OSL 3.0 open source license. That license requires you to share the code even with users (so it plugs the famous "asp hole").
My question regards to it's plugin architecture for modules. Would the OSL 3.0 license apply also to modules, or it wouldn't be considered part of the distribution.
I've already read the license and searched for an explicit answer, but I haven't found it yet. Any insights?
Thanks,
Modules that are included in the main Prestashop distribution are subject to the same license, however any third-party modules or modules developed by Prestashop but not released in the main distribution can be subject to different license terms.
Each module can be written by a different developer/company and is subject to their own license terms. Modules can be free or commercial. Modules can be released under an Open Sourcee License (not necessarily OSL 3.0) or a bespoke license, a commercial license (could be perpetual or annual etc) or I've even seen case with no license details specified.
Also, modules do not have to be acquired from or purchased through the official marketplace they have developed (where Prestashop take a cut of the profits). They can be acquired direct from the software vendors, and installed easily by uploading a zip file.
Related
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 developed a PHP library which is a wrapper to our API.
Patents: The services rendered through the API are covered by patents and anyone using the library may be charged subject to usage crossing certain limits. The license must not grant anyone using the library any patent license.
How Free? Although the library is free, can be copied and distributed unmodified under the same name as much as it can be, usage will be charged depending on limits. In the event of non-payment, the services facilitated by the library will be disrupted.
Modifications & Redistribution: Although anyone is free to review, debug & modify the library, it is desired that modifications to the library are not released under the same name or seek to represent the original and intended library released by us.
Included libraries: The library we are providing uses PHPSecLib & SSS(Shamir's Secret Sharing) library by Kenny Millington. PHPSecLib is released under the MIT license & SSS is under GPLv3 or later.
In view of all this, which license should I choose?
Patents:
How Free?
A lot of API libraries are like that. The library is free but the service the API is utilizing isn't. See, for example, Google AdWords API PHP Client. It's Apache licensed which, in turn, is GPL compatible.
Modifications & Redistribution:
That's a problem. The PHP License has a similar restriction and as such it isn't GPL compatible. Of course if you don't care about GPL compatibility...
Included libraries:
The MIT license is pretty liberal and let's you do pretty much anything. GPLv3, however, is not. If you use GPLv3 code your license is going to need to be GPL compatible and with the restrictions you're wanting to impose it sounds like it's not going to be. My recommendation: maybe rewrite SSS? Compared to phpseclib it looks like an extremely small codebase.
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
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
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
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.