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'd like to use gSOAP in a product which will be distributed commercially. The use I have in mind is what I suspect is a pretty typical workflow—generating a header using wsdl2h, consuming the header with soapcpp2, and then calling the functions generated in the stub in my code.
I'm not 100 percent sure which license(s) I need to use to be able to do this. Has anybody here already gone through this and figured out the solution?
I hope the following clarification helps. Please contact us at contact#genivia.com for questions.
The gSOAP software requires a commercial license for commercial product development if any one of the following conditions hold:
If you use wsdl2h to generate code. Because the generated code is GPL by default, you should obtain a commercial license from Genivia (www.genivia.com/Products/gsoap/contract.html). The wsdl2h tool itself is GPL, and we hold the copyright rights to it.
Or you use the web server code in gsoap/samples/webserver. This component is GPL by default.
Or you use the UDDI components in gsoap/uddi2, which are also GPL by default.
The commercial license is a development site license. There is a one-time fee for perpetual use of gSOAP to develop a product (a "target application"). No royalties.
The other good news is that all other parts of the software are released under the gSOAP public license, which allows commercial use without fees.
So the answer is that as long as you do NOT use wsdl2h, do NOT use the web server code, and do NOT use the UDDI code then you can use the gSOAP public license for free (which is based on the MPL1.1 open source license and a copy of the gSOAP public license is included in the package).
Hope this clarifies our licensing model.
Robert van Engelen, Genivia Inc.
From the site:
Important note: the wsdl2h WSDL
parser, UDDI code, and sample
applications such as the stand-alone
web server are distributed ONLY under
the GPL or the proprietary license.
This means either your product will have to be entirely licensed under GPL (hence you would need to opensource your app if not so already), or you have to purchase a commercial license.
You have to purchase a commercial license -- one per project in which gSOAP is to be used. We've been using it very successfully in a few of our projects here.
The gSoap licence is quite unclear, and I think part of it is even wrong. For example, GPL use and commercial use are opposed in the licencing, which is plain wrong.
Moreover, a code generator which is GPL doesn't necessarily produce GPL code:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL
As I understand the GPL, as long as you release all derived products under the GPL, the code is free for even commercial use. Of course most companies don't want to release their source code for anyone to copy freely, hence the commercial license. I think Genivia's summary is not as clear as it could be on this one point.
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
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.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am about to host my first open source project. I will be hosting it on codeplex where I can choose between the follwing 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
Now I am totally new to all this licensing stuff. Not only I do not know what license I should choose but also I don't really know what kind of rights I should grant and deny. Any help on the process of finding a license is appreciated. What kind of things need to be considered? What question should I be asking myself?
Also: Do I loose any rights when I put the code under any of those licenses? Do I need to adhere to the chosen license too?
There are three main families of free software licenses: permissive, weak copyleft and strong copyleft.
Permissive licenses (MIT, BSD and Apache in your list) allow use of your code in proprietary projects without sharing back either their code or your code, if they modified it.
Weak copyleft licenses (LGPL, MPL in your list) allow use of your code in proprietary projects, but they should share back your code under the same license if they modified it.
Strong copyleft licenses (GPL) require that they distribute their own code under the same license (GPL here).
I recommend against choosing other licenses in your list in order to fight license proliferation. You can read more about free software licenses in Wikipedia, FSF and OSI.
This gives a pretty good outline of what is out there
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html
There's a tool to help you pick on the Creative Commons site
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
We need something like that for all our code licenses!
What rights should you grant or deny?
Are you comfortable with anyone using your program?
Are you comfortable with anyone modifying your program?
Are you comfortable with anyone selling your program?
Are you comfortable with anyone selling modifications of your program?
Are you comfortable with somebody selling your program as closed source?
This are questions you need to answer on your own.
BTW, in my opinion GPL v2 or later is a safe default choice. It is used by those that answer 'yes' to all but the last of my sample questions.
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
I have a software which wrote and includes within several components each of which comes with its own license.
In sum, all 24 components in use are sharing the following licenses:
Public Domain
GPL
LGPL
BSD
MPL
Questions I ask are:
Am I allowed to sell a compiled version of this software which links to all these components?
What is this is installed on a server (being a service) does this make any difference?
What if I modify the code, must I tell the world what did I do?
Public Domain
GPL
LGPL
BSD
MPL
Be careful with these licenses here. In particular, the MPL is not compatible with the GPL. Now, many (probably most) pieces of MPL licensed software are distributed under a dual license, in which you may choose to use and distribute the software under the terms of the MPL or under the terms of the GPL (or sometimes LGPL). But in that case, you shouldn't list the MPL in the list of licenses you are distributing software under, because in order to link to software released under the GPL, you must be using the GPL (or LGPL) option of the dual-license.
Am I allowed to sell a compiled version of this software which links to all these components?
Yes (and the other licenses don't affect this, either).
What is this is installed on a server (being a service) does this make any difference?
If you are selling a service, in which you only run the software on your own computers and don't distribute the software to anyone outside of your company or organization, then none of these licenses impose any significant restrictions on what you may do. In particular, the GPL and LGPL do not require you to provide source code to anyone else in these cases.
If you are using a lot of third party software, it's still generally a good idea to contribute your patches back to the upstream project. Diverging from the upstream can cause a lot of problems in the future when you try to upgrade, and contributing code upstream will mean you get more people who are familiar with the projects you are modifying to review your code, which can help improve its quality.
What if I modify the code, must I tell the world what did I do?
If you distribute the software to anyone outside of your company or organization, then you must provide them with the source code, or provide them with a written offer to provide the source code at a later date, for no more than the cost of physically transferring the data to them.
If you do not distribute the software, then none of the licenses above impose any significant restrictions on you. The GNU Affero GPL, or AGPL, is the only license I know of that imposes significant restrictions on people who run software as a network service, and as you did not list that license in your question, I don't think it's something you need to be concerned about.
Note that I am answering these questions from the point of view of the GPL, which is the most restrictive license that you list. Effectively, when you link several pieces of software with these licenses together, you can consider the whole to be licensed under the terms of the GPL (except for the MPL, which as I've mentioned, is incompatible). See the following slide for a visual depiction of compatibility between common licenses:
(source: dwheeler.com)
Yes, but see (3).
Yes, depending on your reading of the GPL. If it is your own server, you are argualbly OK.
If you distribute (i.e. sell) the executable, the fact that one of the components is GPL'd means you must also distribute your code.
Yes, but you must have a notice somewhere saying that some of the code(ie, everything but public domain) was under so-and-so license and it's source is available here.
No, shouldn't matter
Only for the GPL and LGPL code
AFAIK, you can't link to GPL code unless you use GPL on your software too (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem ). If you're linking some other software together with GPL code, it must have a "compatible license" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility ). This matched, you can sell your software for any price you want, assuming you deliver the source code or offers this delivery for no charge.
You can put GPL software on a server, with changes made on your own, without delivering the source code, as long as you don't give the binary to anyone. Google explore this possibility a lot, using GPL code to deliver proprietary services over the web. However, this behaviour is not possible with GPLv3 if it uses the "Affero clause" (aka AGPL)
If you distribute your changes as a binary, yes, you must. Otherwise, check (2).
1 : yes, cf earlz or Neil Butterworth answers.
2 : ??
3 : if you modify the GPL/LGPL libraries and you provide (give/sell) your product, you must distribute the code (more precisely, the modifications you did to the library).
My opinion : have these libraries in separate projects from yours, so there is a clear separation and you can easily provide a patch if asked.
DISCLAMER : I am not a lawyer, consult a lawyer if in doubt
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
I am considering starting an OSS project and would like some advice.
I would like to use a licence that allows free use of the project for personal and non-profit use but would allow me to charge for a commercial licence (like or similar to http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php).
Could someone please advise or link to some articles on how to approach this? Thanks in advance.
As the Open-Source-definition describes, you cannot limit the usage of your project, if you want to stay open-source. In other words: you cannot forbid a commercial use for an open-source-app. So you can choose another (non-open-source) license, that fulfills your demands, or you choose another way.
One possibility is to release only the source under open-source-license and have another license for binary distributions. As far as I know thats true for Java. That works good, if the build of your app is somewhat complicated.
You can release your app under the GPL-license. That does not forbid commercial use. But if some derivate work is created, it has to be GPL-licensed too. That works well for libraries or similar stuff that isn't used alone, but in a merged product. EDIT: As DrJokepu mentions, using a GPL-framework in a webserver-stack would help to avoid to release your own sources. That's why one extension to the GPL is the Affero GPL, that need you to release your work under the same license (AGPL) even if you don't release it, but only use it to build a public webpage. So for webservices you need the AGPL to achieve the same result.
You can't us an OSI-certified Open Source license and ban commercial use.
If what you want to do is stop somebody from taking your software and selling their version as some sort of shrink-wrapped software, you can use a GPL-style license. For maximum compatibility, I'd recommend GPLv2+ (Gnu General Public License, version 2, or any later version at your discretion). With that license, somebody can sell your software, but they have to make it clear that anybody can get the source, and that it can be freely redistributed. That would, I think, cover most of what people want to ban as commercial use.
The producing open-source software book has a great section on dual licensing. It outlines the approach where a single entity, such as a foundation "owns" the copyright to a projects source.
The foundation chooses to make the source available under two different licensing schemes, one closed and another that is open-source. For your particular case you will want to ensure that you stick with a strong copyleft license (i.e. such as GPL) to prevent commercial derivative works of the freely available source code.
However, as others have noted, this does not prevent commercial entities from using your software, just from taking your work and selling it to others. In some cases this works out, as strangely enough, many organisations would rather purchase something than download and use something for free. These are the same sorts of organisations that need legally binding contracts with vendors and some form of support. I.e. When you sell software you are actually selling a whole bunch of other services at the same time as a "shrink wrapped" product.
Now, how can code be kept closed and sold, as well as released under the GPL license? The mind bending legal part of the whole arrangement, is that contributions of IP to the foundation are not made under the GPL license. Rather, developers give their IP to the foundation under "contributor agreements" which pass on copyright of their changes to the foundation and permit the foundation to release the code under two different licenses. This last little caveat is the big downside to dual licensing, sometimes developers are not interested in contributor agreements, they want there changes only available under the open-source license and nothing else. Quite a few contributor agreements that kick around the place, but here is the one that sun uses for MySQL.
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.