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
What are the implications of including a set of visual components released under a Mozilla Public License in a commercial application.
Do I have any obligations?
I've found pretty good analysis on MPL (and others) by Frank Hecker here:
http://hecker.org/writings/setting-up-shop (search for "Mozilla Public License")
This pretty much sums it up:
For MozPL-ed source code considered as
a set of source files, modifications
of the original source files are
considered to also fall under the
MozPL, as are new source files
incorporating extracts from the
original source files. Such modified
or new files are required to be
licensed under the same terms as the
original files, and in particular must
be made freely and publicly available
in source form.
...
Thus an open-source product initially
released under the MozPL may be
extended with proprietary code to
create new proprietary products, as
long as the proprietary code is
separate (i.e., in separate files) and
interacts with the open-source code
using a defined API.
But as usual, read it carefully and consult your lawyers.
The only problem is if you modify the components you must release them under Mozilla Public License as well
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’m somewhat confused about the implications of introducing source code licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License. I'm developing a test framework and I want to use and modify an open source project as part of the existing framework. Does this imply that the entire test framework should be open sourced?
You can integrate the LGPL component into a proprietary solution as long as it stays separate. So for example linking is fine, usage as a processor is fine. Bundling is also fine, as long as you clearly state that the bundle contains LGPL software and which that is.
You certainly can modify that software to your needs, that is the whole point of Open Source Software. However of you spread it again afterwards, for example by bundling it with your framework, you have to publish your modifications.
In general follow this rule of thumb:
You can use it and modify it to your needs, but do not try to make it appear as if you implemented that solution. Be fair and give credits to those who did the work for you.
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 developing an application which requires a third party framework which is under an Eclipse Public Licence (EPL). The application is a server-side commercial application which will be running on my servers. The EPL software is distributed as binaries (jar files). I'm only using the packages and am not making any contribution, i.e. not making any changes to the source.
Under EPL I believe I'm not a "Contributor" nor am I making a "Contribution". But if I want to make my software available to be installed at some offsite server I'm having trouble with REQUIREMENTS of EPL:
b.iv - "states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange".
Does this mean that if I where to modify the source code of the 3rd party framework for my own purposes I would need to distribute all of my source code?
EPL is supposed to be commercially friendly but it doesn't seem that way to me.
The way that I understand your question is "If I change part of the framework, do I need to redistribute all of the source code of my application, even the parts that aren't part of the framework?". If that is the proper interpretation of your question, then no, you do not need to distribute all the code of your application.
EPL is a weak copyleft license, however it is a non-viral copyleft so it only applies to the source of what was EPL'ed, not to what you build on top of the EPL project. Thus, it does not require that you distribute the source to your application, only the changes made to the framework itself. The terms of the EPL only apply to the source of the library, not the source of your application. Your application's code will governed by its own license (as you are not redistributing it, ostensibly a simple "I own all the rights to this code" license).
Basically, as long as you are not using a library governed by a fully copyleft license, then you should be fine.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Do not take this as real legal advice.
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 working on a web based ladder system for a game. It is very game specific and I want to make the project open source so the community can give back, contribute and make the experience better for everyone. However at the same time I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites because the purpose of the website/project is to unify the community under one roof. So my question is: what is the best license to use to make that possible?
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites ...
This really misses the point of Free Software, or as the FSF puts it, it's open source but not really Free Software. Despite my tone, I'm not here to lecture you, I'm simply pointing out that people are not likely to help if the project has this kind of restriction.
However, if you change that to:
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites without contributing any modifications they make back to the project ...
Then the GNU Affero General Public License might be appropriate; it prevents people from modifying your website unless they publish their changes under the same license.
If you still insist on your original restriction, then no open source license will help you, since most of them are about being Free Software, not just open source. You're going to have to write your own license, or modify an existing one.
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
Lets say that I am writing a program that supports plugins and I write one plugin that has a reference to a assembly(.net) that is licensed under LGPL, must I now make the whole project open source and under LGPL?
The main difference between the LGPL and the GPL is that the LGPL does not impose any licensing requirements between modules that can be interchanged by the end user.
So as long as the end user can substitute a different but compatible version of the third party assembly, and as long as you obey the other requirements of the LGPL (like giving appropriate attribution if you're distributing that third party assembly) you can license your stuff however you like.
That depends on the nature of the reference. If "having a reference" is similar to "linking a library", you are not forced to license your software under the LGPL. That is where the LGPL and the GPL differ.
Consulting a lawyer is the only way to get complete, accurate advice of this nature.
That being said, you should be fine, provided you leave the LGPL code in the indepdendant, .NET assembly. If you use the code directly within your project, you may run into other issues, but as long as the .NET assembly is left as-is, and just used by your project, you shouldn't have to open up your code (although you do need to follow the other restrictions of LGPL - mainly distributing the appropriate license files, providing access to the code for the assembly, and using proper attribution).
Sorry this thread is very old. But still couldn't find it very clear. So here is my answere
When a library or framework is LGPL , you are free to use the libraries in your commercial project (Yes. you can sell it). You don't need to make your code opensource.
You have to make the code opensource only if:
1. you change the code of library/framework. or
2. You link the libraries statically. (If you link dynamically there is no need to worry about. In windows you can use .dll files to link dynamically)