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
For quite a while, I thought that Free Software was Open Source Software. I've found out that this view is incorrect, and that Open Source Software is not necessarily Free Software. I honestly can't see any differences.
What am I missing here? What are the distinguishing traits of both parties?
Both are basically the same, except the free software movement puts more emphasis on the freedom to modify and redistribute the code. For example, GNU GPL would be more "free" than MIT licence, because MIT license does not enforce copyleft and thus someone can develop closed-source software based on the code.
See also Wikipedia chapter about this, which mentions Microsoft shared source inititive, that can provide you with very unfree source code of their applications.
Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social
movement.
- Richard Stallman
The GNU project answers this question directly:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
The essential difference, slightly oversimplified, is that Free Software generally requires that, if you modify and/or incorporate it into another body of work, the entire result must also be distributed as Free Software, and you are forbidden to further restrict the ability of any "downstream" users from modifying, using, or redistributing the software with the same rights that were given to you.
Disclaimer: Dammit, Jim, I'm a developer, not a lawyer. Don't construe any terms or comments as "legal advice."
Open source definition:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Free software defintion:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Both are talking about free-as-in-speech. FSF is "more free" in that for software to meet the FSF standards, it must afford more freedoms to its users. The OSI standards are looser, "free" software is "open" but the reverse isn't necessarily true - It turns out even this isn't always true.
They are functionally the same in the vast majority of cases. It's a philosophical difference - FSF wants intellectual freedom, OSI wants practical freedom to (re)use and adapt software.
It is pretty simple to understand.
Free source in the sense: Which is free with free laws applicable once you modify it also should also be shared to world with same laws! And its code if any can also be all of us!
Open source in the sense: We can see the actual application for our daily usage, but cannot use it as it is ours means that we cannot modify its code since it is copyrighted to the distributor!
For more info: "Difference between free and open source"
Freeware software is just small software which are free but their codes are not accessible.It can be downloaded ,used ,copied without restrictions.
Shareware software are just a demo version of the full software developed by small software company and the modification and other usability lies with the development group.Here end user dependencies is more.
Open source software are just software developed often by large vendors which are re distribuable ,used and modifiable with out any restrictions.Here codes of the software are fully accessed by the user for future modification and making of large software.
Free means the user has freedom to run,copy, study,distribute,change and improve the software. And the open source is different to that.
Related
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
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 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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
What licenses are the best for open sourcing web applications?
It depends on your licensing goals.
If you just want the code to be widely usable, MIT or 3-clause BSD work fine.
If you want to require redistributions of your code to be under the same license, GPL works.
If you want to require deployments of your web application to distribute its source code, with any modifications, then you'll need the AGPL.
If you are fine with your application being used as the basis for a proprietary web service, then just pick a standard license (BSD, GPL, MPL, whatever) using the same criteria as for other projects. If you want to prevent that, however, the only option I know of is AGPL, which requires that installations provide source to their users. Then BigBucksServiceVendor can set up an installation, tweak it, and charge users to use it, but they must provide their source code so that someone else can do the same as well.
The AGPL also, though, is not near as widely used as many of the other licenses. That may impact your decision.
The answer for the "best" depends too much what you hope to accomplish, so a concrete answer is impossible.
If you would like to know more about the types of open sources licenses and what they offer, Wikipedia is a great place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license
Despite the multitude of open-source licenses, there are probably only a few you can realistically choose from when it all boils down. As Mike was saying, it all really depends on what you're looking for.
Realize that open-sourcing is just another form of license protection, so deciding for yourself the terms under which you want it to be released will greatly affect which license you choose. Do you want to allow commercial endeavors to profit from your work? What if someone were to modify your code significantly into their own derivative product... can they distribute it (for free or not) without also distributing the original or at least linking back to you? Do you care if anyone gives you credit at all for your work? These are just a few questions that should probably be answered before you head too far down this road.
I'd recommend taking a look at a few wiki pages -- specifically, investigate the difference between permissive and non-permissive licenses, as these are the two major types of open-source license. When you get around to figuring out what exactly you want to protect and how you'd like to protect it, that's when I think the right decision will become clearer for you.
Pick a License, Any License
There are a variety of options depending on what you're looking for. There is a very good article on Wikipedia describing many of the licenses and what it means to use a specific license.