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 looking at different types of linux to run a small web server on, however I have a question as I am a bit confused about how the GPL works. If I have PHP scripts that I created myself, etc...running on the linux server, do those automatically become part of the GPL, or are those still mine to do with as I please? How about if I need to make a copy of the system, as is, by making a disk image, to install it on another computer of mine? Does that mean that all my work would become part of the GPL?
First of all it is very likely that your Linux system will run Apache, which is not licensed under terms of GPL, but Apache license. Apache itself does not run PHP scripts. In fact lots of functionality is provided by third-party modules and this applies to PHP too, which is handled by mod_php. Those modules are allowed to be distributed under their own licenses. And PHP utilizes this being distributed under terms of PHP license. PHP license is not permissive (or not copyleft), which means that you may distribute your scripts under any license you wish, with very little restrictions like including in your product a statement:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from <http://www.php.net/software/>
So basically no, your software will not become a part of GPL in any way.
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 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've written a Ruby gem that I've licensed under the MIT license, but I think I could greatly improve the test coverage by using an AGPL library in my specs. The actual library code I've written (that would be executed by people using the gem) would never use this AGPL library, it would just be for running the tests in a development environment when running the gem specs.
Is it legal for me to then license my spec code under AGPL while still licensing my library/application code under MIT? Is there anything special I would have to do with regard to my GitHub repository (e.g. a separate repo for the specs) or my .gemspec file (e.g. not bundling the specs and AGPL library with the gem)?
First of all, I am not a lawyer.
Let's assume that the library you're going to use is named L.
Since your application code is not a derivative work of L it is not affected by AGPL's licensing. Therefore you're free to choose rules under which it is distributed.
Your test code is a derivative work of L in the sense of AGPL and as a result if you publish it you have to use terms of AGPL.
Storing files with different licenses in a single repository is not an issue. What is important is to clearly and unambigously state what is the license of each file. The best idea is to put relevant notes both in files' headers and a README or LICENSE file. What I mean is something like
All files in the test directory are published under terms of (...). All remaining files are published under terms of (...) unless otherwise stated.
Remember to add this information in each form of distribution of your project, i.e. a gem file, a tarball and so on. If you have to specify terms under which your whole gem is published you have to provide both licenses. In the terms of a gemspec it would mean
spec.licenses = ['MIT', 'AGPL']
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
Can anyone explain to me what does the NSIS licensing terms mean? http://nsis.sourceforge.net/License
So far it seems that the system is usable in commercial products, but the ZLIB/PNG/BZIP2/LZMA/CPL1.0 part confuses me.
Do I have to include a license page with all these licenses in setup that user has to agree with? Or are they for source code modifications only? Or only if you're compressing the data with one of the libraries?
NSIS is a "software" application. The license information provided in the license page describes "use, distribution, modification" cases for NSIS itself. Since you are not distributing "NSIS" but an output file (installer for your application) that is produced by NSIS, you shouldn't include those licenses in your application (and installer).
You don't need to display a nsis specific license in a normal installer (Except if your installer includes the nsis sourcecode I guess)
Everything except the bzip2 and lzma compression is ZLIB/PNG and this is a very open and nice license (This includes the content on the wiki unless stated otherwise IIRC). Unless you are distributing modified versions on nsis itself you probably don't have anything to worry about. (And of course, IANAL & TINLA)
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 12 years ago.
Improve this question
i want to publish my software under a opensource license with the following conditions:
you are allowed to:
Share — to copy, distribute and
transmit the work
use a modified
version of the code in your
application
you are not allowed to:
publish modified versions of the code
use the code in anything commercial
is there a software license out there that fits my needs ?
Having a noncommercial clause is against the spirit of opensource. So no, there isn't. And if you do make one yourself then you should not be calling it opensource but instead call it a non-commercial license.
There are in fact code with the kind of licensing you are talking about and there are widely recognised by the opensource community as being non-opensource. MINIX (by Tanenbaum) is one of them. The code is freely available and public and anyone can see but have severe restrictions on re-publishing modifications. MINIX is widely considered to be a closed-source piece of code.
Lots of commercial, proprietay, closed-source embedded operating systems are actually distributed as code and have only copyright laws protecting them (instead of complex, byzantine DRM). Just the fact that people can see your source code does not make it open source.
One last example. Windows (including XP, Vista and Seven). Microsoft makes the source code Windows available to anyone who needs it for non-commercial, educational purposes provided you sign an NDA. Their source license sounds a lot like what you want. Check out the license here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx. I doubt anyone would argue that Windows is opensource.
You can publish code under any licence you want but it will only be F/OSS, Open Source, if it complies with the OSI definition : http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Your conditions are incompatible in several ways.
Take note that almost all players in Open Software use OSI-compliant licences - you would be going completely against all current opinion and practice.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This page summarizes different license types' terms (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc):
http://www.codeproject.com/info/Licenses.aspx
Say I write a program for sale that uses a software under one of the licensing types where "Can be used in commercial applications:" is true, and "Can be used in proprietary (closed source) applications:" is true.
Then if the "Bug fixes / extensions must be released to the public domain:" line is true, what does it mean to me? What am I required to do?
Thank you.
This will usually mean that if you build a patch or other modification of the program and want to distribute it you must also publish the sources of that modification under a license explicitly mentioned in the program license text.
In some license types this includes both the other program and any program using that (including your program). In others (like LGPL) this will only be required only for modification made to that program, but not to your program if they are separated (LGPL is typically used for libraries and doesn't enforce publishing the library consumers).
simply:
you can sell (and release with your own commercial license) your own app built with the provided code.
but:
you can not improve on the code (of the software you are using within your app) directly and not give it to public domain (usually it is in the original license of the software).
Instead of relying on those summaries, you would be advised to carefully read the license for any open source license you plan to use in a closed source product.
For instance, LGPL does not actually require you to release source code changes to the public domain. Rather, it requires you to release them under the terms of the LGPL.
If you are nor sure that you understand the implications of a particular license, talk to your company's lawyers.
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 inquiring into the licensing pertaining to distributing the JDK/JRE from Sun.
The reason I ask is that I would like to provide a client with an ISO disk image that includes my application plus the JDK or JRE dependency.
This is what you need:
Form Sun:
Redistribution: Both the JDK and JRE can be freely redistributed with value-add (per terms of the BCL).
Here's the link
Many people have been bundling the JDK into their applications without paying any fees. The user is not bothered with the licensing issues as the JDK/JRE is already extracted and any other dependency is also bundled.
I often see that question asked but Sun doesn't provide a clear and simple answer to it. "If you would like to embed the JVM in commercial applications, you have to pay some fees". Such a note should be displayed in each download page in my opinion.
So long as you do not modify it and do not charge money for it, you can bundle the installation binary along with your app. The jars are not sufficient.
You can find this information in the Java SE README files.
In particular, this is an extract of the Java 7 JRE README:
[...] you can redistribute the Java SE Runtime Environment for free
with your application, according to the terms of the Oracle Binary
Code License Agreement for the Java SE Platform Products.
Redistribution of JDK is a bit more complicated, please refer to the Redistributable JDK Files section of README file.