Can i implement DHTMLX / DayPoilet or FullCalendar in our Asp.Net MVC using Angularjs freely for hospital rooms booking scheduler as on one side we have rooms while on other side we have time like
https://fullcalendar.io/scheduler/
or
http://roombooking.scheduler-net.com/ (clickin on rooms button)
You can use the Standard edition of dhtmlxScheduler for your project. The Standard edition is distributed under GNU GPLv2 and can be downloaded for free. Please note that in case of using GPL version, your whole project should be open source and licensed under GNU GPL v2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
If you can't or don't want to license your project under GNU GPLv2, you should purchase the license.
Related
Is it possible to use charts in ExtJS 6.6 Community Edition?
I try to add them as I usually do in my app, based on ExtJS 6.2 GPL version, but it does not work. Perhaps packages need to be somehow explicitly added via npm?
In addition, in the documentation for ExtJS 6.6 CE I do not see the description of the corresponding classes.
Unfortunately charts are not available in the CE edition. Here is an excerpt from the Sencha Software License Agreement, and specifically the "8. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS APPLICABLE TO THE COMMUNITY EDITION" section (emphasis mine):
In the event You have obtained a Sencha Ext JS Standard Community
Edition license (the “Community Edition”), the following terms apply
in addition to the General Terms described in Section 2 above. Please
note that the Community Edition does not include all the software
packages that Sencha Ext JS includes, and in particular does not
include Ext JS Classic, Ext JS Charts, and many Ext JS fonts and
themes.
I found this on the hippo cms licence page.
All included libraries are distributed either under the Apache
Software License 2.0 or a compatible license, with the exception of
the Sencha ExtJS library. Sencha ExtJS is distributed under GPL v3,
with an Open Source License Exception for Applications. If you
customise or redistribute Hippo Community Edition code that uses ExtJS
components, then you must comply to their open source licenses - or
buy an appropriate developer license from Sencha.
As I want to distribute my product I would like to exclude everything that use Sencha ExtJS to keep the product in Apache 2.0 licence.
So my question is, which parts of HippoCMS need Sencha ExtJS to work ?
Because, for example if we can't create date without ExtJS, it's really bad because I (and the client) would like to use it, so that's why I am asking you.
Check out this discussion on our Community forum .
https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/?place=forum/hippo-community&showsearch=true&showpopout=true&showtabs=false&parenturl=http://www.onehippo.org/7_8/library/about/cms-forums.html#!searchin/hippo-community/Sencha$20ExtJs$20/hippo-community/DWbI32Mw5Rk/dXvqZa-dgdQJ
Is it allowed to sell an app that is built with the open-source ExtJS 4.2.0 to companies if they use the app to provide a free service or for intern uses only?
Edit:
From this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1298989/1914034
If you respect one of those condition, you can, but does it apply if you sell it?
You open-source your app under GPL v3.
The app is only for internal use in your company.
The app is used by your company to provide a service and not directly
distributed to the customer e.g. most web pages (according to GPL
this is interpreted as an internal use of the app - if Ext team
would have chosen to prohibit that, then they would have used
Affero GPL, which directly forbids that).
I think that you can as long as you publish the project under GPL licence.
http://www.sencha.com/legal/open-source-faq/
I'm going to use DNN Platform (v7.x) website as wiki portal for web application I'm working on.
Question: what licensing rules are applied to it? During installation I wasn't asked to accept any agreement, and at http://dnnsoftware.com site is only info about their paid CMS Evoq (based on DNN). I understand that it is commnunity edition and it's free, but is it free for commercial use and there is no restrictions about that?
Please, provide me some official resources.
DNN platform is an MIT licensed application, meaning you can pretty much do anything you want with it, even sell it to someone else for $1million dollars.
You can use it for a free website, you can use it for a paid website, you can use it to build a killer application and then sell that for billions of dollars.
edit: link to license -> https://dotnetnuke.codeplex.com/license
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
The MIT license is GPL-compatible. Is the GPL license MIT-compatible? i.e. I can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed product, but can I include GPL-licensed code in a MIT-licensed product?
It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does. Is that correct? Is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?
It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does.
True - in general. You don't have to open-source your changes if you're using GPL. You could modify it and use it for your own purpose as long as you're not distributing it. BUT... if you DO distribute it, then your entire project that is using the GPL code also becomes GPL automatically. Which means, it must be open-sourced, and the recipient gets all the same rights as you - meaning, they can turn around and distribute it, modify it, sell it, etc. And that would include your proprietary code which would then no longer be proprietary - it becomes open source.
The difference with MIT is that even if you actually distribute your proprietary code that is using the MIT licensed code, you do not have to make the code open source. You can distribute it as a closed app where the code is encrypted or is a binary. Including the MIT-licensed code can be encrypted, as long as it carries the MIT license notice.
is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?
Yes, very much so.
Can I include GPL licensed code in a MIT licensed product?
You can. GPL is free software as well as MIT is, both licenses do not restrict you to bring together the code where as "include" is always two-way.
In copyright for a combined work (that is two or more works form together a work), it does not make much of a difference if the one work is "larger" than the other or not.
So if you include GPL licensed code in a MIT licensed product you will at the same time include a MIT licensed product in GPL licensed code as well.
As a second opinion, the OSI listed the following criteria (in more detail) for both licenses (MIT and GPL):
Free Redistribution
Source Code
Derived Works
Integrity of The Author's Source Code
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Distribution of License
License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
License Must Not Restrict Other Software
License Must Be Technology-Neutral
Both allow the creation of combined works, which is what you've been asking for.
If combining the two works is considered being a derivate, then this is not restricted as well by both licenses.
And both licenses do not restrict to distribute the software.
It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your modifications only because you made them. That's not precise.
You might mix this with distribiution of software under GPL which is not what you've asked about directly.
Is that correct - is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?
This is how I understand it:
As far as distribution counts, you need to put the whole package under GPL. MIT code inside of the package will still be available under MIT whereas the GPL applies to the package as a whole if not limited by higher rights.
"Restrictive" or "more restrictive" / "less restrictive" depends a lot on the point of view. For a software-user the MIT might result in software that is more restricted than the one available under GPL even some call the GPL more restrictive nowadays. That user in specific will call the MIT more restrictive. It's just subjective to say so and different people will give you different answers to that.
As it's just subjective to talk about restrictions of different licenses, you should think about what you would like to achieve instead:
If you want to restrict the use of your modifications, then MIT is able to be more restrictive than the GPL for distribution and that might be what you're looking for.
In case you want to ensure that the freedom of your software does not get restricted that much by the users you distribute it to, then you might want to release under GPL instead of MIT.
As long as you're the author it's you who can decide.
So the most restrictive person ever is the author, regardless of which license anybody is opting for ;)
You are correct that the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license.
You cannot include GPL code in a MIT licensed product. If you distribute a combined work that combines GPL and MIT code (except in some particular situations, e.g. 'mere aggregation'), that distribution must be compliant with the GPL.
You can include MIT licensed code in a GPL product. The whole combined work must be distributed in a way compliant with the GPL. If you have made changes to the MIT parts of the code, you would be required to publish the source for those changes if you distribute an application that contains GPL and MIT code.
If you are the copyright owner of the GPL code, you can of course choose to release that code under the MIT license instead - in that case it's your code and you can publish it under as many licenses as you want.
IANAL but as I see it....
While you can combine GPL and MIT code, the GPL is tainting. Which means the package as a whole gets the limitations of the GPL. As that is more restrictive you can no longer use it in commercial (or rather closed source) software. Which also means if you have a MIT/BSD/ASL project you will not want to add dependencies to GPL code.
Adding a GPL dependency does not change the license of your code but it will limit what people can do with the artifact of your project. This is also why the ASF does not allow dependencies to GPL code for their projects.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html