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 trying to implement lossy image compression algorithm with good ratio and (I hope) less artifacts that jpeg has. I plan to release encoder/decoder tool first. I've heard that there's some issues with jpeg2000 usage related to licensing and patents. So I want to avoid these problems with my algorithm (i've mentioned jpeg2000 only as example of license problems, my algorithm significantly differs from jpeg2000). I have also heard about problems using some things licensed under GPL.
So the main question is all about what license to choose to make my work accessible for everyone and to prohibit some bad guys to do bad things to it to make it less accessible. I also want to know what disadvantages GPL has for image compression algorithm.
Thanks.
There are a range of licenses you can choose from - see the Open Source Initiative site for details. Which you choose will depend on how strongly you feel about open source versus widest possible adoption of your software.
The GPL license ensures that all users of your library publish any changes they make to your code. With a few exceptions, it also compels them to make all of their product source code freely available. This means that GPL code may not be attractive to some commercial products so a GPL license may not be ideal if you want to encourage maximum adoption of your library.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the MIT license is very liberal, effectively allowing users to do whatever they want with your library. It is suitable for both open source and commercial projects so would be a good choice to grow your library's user base. Users of your library are not obliged to publish any changes they make to your library so this license may fail your "bad guy" test.
A compromise choice might be the LGPL license. Users are obliged to publish any changes they make to your library but can often keep their code private. (This is typically true for desktop applications; it's much harder to do this for embedded or certain mobile applications).
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
There's a LGPL-licensed console application. I want to create a commercial GUI front-end for it and distribute it bundled with this console app. Does LGPL license allow that?
Note that I am not using a LGPL-licensed library, I am using a stand-alone application.
I tried reading the license itself, but it is still unclear to me.
Note that I am not using a LGPL-licensed library, I am using a stand-alone application.
The first L in LGPL stands for Lesser not Library. So it does not play much of a role whether it is a library or a stand-alone application.
LGPL is with weaker copyleft. That means, if you re-distribute that LGPL'ed software in object code (binary) you need to offer the source for it (for that version you distribute).
However it is lesser, meaning that you do not need to put your code under LGPL as well. Take care that your users should be able to tell both applications apart (and replace the one or other part easily).
However if you write GUI frontend, I think this is a pretty standard case, you will create a command-line and then execute the LGPL'ed binary.
Take care that this is from a developers perspective, not from a lawyer. A lawyer would require to see your current application and then could tell you in more detail the whats and whereabouts for your very concrete case.
It's also practical you get in contact with the author of the LGPL'ed software, they might be interested to know which supporting tools exist. As they have choosen the LGPL it's likely they do not expect your software to be under LGPL as well. So if you get in touch with the original authors you can also clarify your issue, albeit I don't think there is one technically.
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 am a researcher in Mathematics at a university, and I released a code toolbox that is mostly for research use, but can have applications in engineering and industry.
I would like to have a license that basically says "you can use this code freely if you are in a university and use it for publishing, studying teaching, but not if you are in the industry --- in that case, please reach for the wallet".
CC-NC-BY-SA would look perfect to my eyes, but using it for code is heavily discouraged, I suppose for good reasons. None of the other open source licenses seems to do what I want. Writing my own license looks like a legal mess, and I'd rather avoid it.
How would you solve this issue?
Related questions (but not the exact same thing): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1232666/proper-open-source-license-to-release-academic-code, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6443110/practicalities-of-licensing-academic-software
I assume that toolbox is written by your own and you want to share it with other academics. In case someone from industry is making millions you want your share (well, the sunny-day example).
I don't know any license that comes close to that.
The CC-NC-BY-SA is discouraged because of two reasons mainly:
CC licenses are not for software. They know nothing about the two most prominent forms of software: Object Code (binary, compiled) and the Source Code (author version).
Non-Commercial. It is undefined what this term means, especially legally.
So you use your morally and subjective day-to-day terms and every human on the planet comes pretty close in understanding what you mean, but putting this into a copyright related software license is problematic.
I'm not a lawyer, but probably some kind of passive licensing would suit your needs. There just is no license, you put your term:
"you can use this code freely if you are in a university and use it for publishing, studying teaching, but not if you are in the industry --- in that case, please reach for the wallet
and then say this is in your own words, you decide about the meaning in case it's unclear now or in the future. (if you talk with your lawyer, a suggestion will come up that you should disclaim warranties and such which is normally suggested.)
Most academic users I bet are fine with this. Commercial users are pressured for more clarification, so you can run contracts then. Job done.
The other route would be you release under a strong copyleft license like the AGPL. This would engage user-rights (so you give a lot), however this would be the typical something-for-something, because they need to offer the software as well to all of their users under AGPL, including their changes and add-ons.
Additionally you can offer "commercial" licenses (AGPL does not forbid commercial use, however it requires to preserve the freedom of the software) as long as you're the copyright owner.
Probably either the little suspicous, "I name no license" policy, or something that's okay for you to give (strong copyleft) + X might do it. There are pros and cons for either of these two paths, so chew a bit and maybe you get a third idea that's doing it for you.
However, I am not aware of any existing license that covers your case. You might find some through research because I'm normally not interested in licenses that are for some user-groups only (e.g. only academics, only non-commercial), because the borders are not clear.
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 plan to use CKEditor in commercial site. I've read http://ckeditor.com/license but I didn't understand how it is possible to have pricing for commercial use while they offer LGPL(which is good choice for commercial use)
Imagine you want to compile the javascript code of CkEditor into a binary application. Just assume this is possible. Then you would not ship the source code of the library any longer.
If you now even make modifications to the source code to distribute within the binary, you do not satisfy the LGPL as it requires that you provide the source for the library along with your binary. Same for the MPL on the file level.
If you don't want to distribute (your changes in) the source-code form of the library, you then can get a commercial license by the project (you buyout the license).
Next to such specific cases I can imagine that some folks just would like to have a commercial license as form of a backup if their legal department is too much puzzled. If the license is relatively cheap, they can opt for it and continue with their own work w/o being further interrupted. Business, you need to keep it running.
But regarding the LGPL, as long as you offer source (incl. the changes you probably make) of the library, you're fine to use it with non-free programs. So this does not mean that your website must be LGPL it's just using a LGPL'ed library.
You can use it for your commercial website. However, if you build a product and want to include (distribute) CKEditor with it then you might need a commercial license.
The condition whether you need the license is based on your product's license. If your product is closed sourced then including an open source product with it without sharing the source code is illegal. So, this commercial/closed distribution license fills the gap. You pay for it and you can distribute your product with the CKEditor closed sourced. Additionally you may do any closed source modifications to CKEditor.
TL;DR: if you want to modify and distribute it with a commercial license then you need to pay, otherwise you are free to use to for free!
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
I am starting an opensource project.
I want to allow the following:
Free for noncommercial use, bins and source mods, like with the GPL, but I would like to retain commercial rights for myself, and provide another license for commercial use for customers who prefer that option.
The number of licensing options seem a bit overwhelming. So my question is:
Which opensource license should I
use?
Which commercial license should I
use, if there are any standard ones
available? Or should I come up with
my own one here?
There is no problem with dual-licensing. GPL is fine for the noncommercial variant, and is widely accepted.
With the commercial one, I do not know of any standard ones. I would recommend you write one, that really suits your needs.
There is Hanselminutes Podcast on licenses here: Open Source Software Licensing with Jonathan Zuck of ACT Online. Towards the end they talk about the dual licensing of the MySQL database.
There is also a transscript of the podcast as PDF, have a look at the end of the first column on page 7.
No open source license (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) will forbid commercial use of software. You can use a version of the GPL to disallow taking your software proprietary; companies could still use it internally, or distribute it for their own purposes, but they couldn't package it up and sell it as normal shrinkwrap software. Don't use a license like Boost or BSD, as they allow unlimited commercial usage with no restrictions.
You should decide what commercial use you want to allow, and that will depend heavily on the software and what people might want to use it for.
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 writing a piece of open-source software which will be easily embeddable (both static/dynamic libraries and executables on top of them). Which software licence would:
allow the user to use either the source code by embedding it, or link against it dynamically or statically in his own programs under any licence, including closed and open-source?
ensure that any modifications made to the files created by me be released under the same licence?
I am given credit in his software, no matter how he uses my code?
He doesn't misuse the name of my software in his program?
Thanks
Wikipedia has an excellent comparison article which goes over a variety of software licenses, and you should review it carefully, as well as the actual license texts once you have it narrowed down to a few licenses.
The LGPL will fufil clauses 1, 2, and 3 of your request. Clause 4 isn't something that should ideally be covered by a license, but rather by a trademark with an accompanying trademark policy. (registered or un-) See for example Mozilla's Trademark Policy.
Of course, IANAL, IANYL, YMMV, and OIMACTTA.
You may wish to look at this comparison chart:
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html
A little smaller but simpler:
http://khason.net/blog/open-source-licenses-comparison-table/
(I am not a lawyer...)
What you want is something likely compatible with the GNU/GPL license. In particular, the Artistic 2.0 license looks like a good candidate as it looks as if it meets the authorship requirements.
License compatibility will be the most important criteria. You may dislike every clause of the a commercial license (for which there is no standard) or the GPL or what have you, but because they are both extremely common, you will want to pick a license that is compatible with them. The CDDL is a beautiful license that is not as compatible as it could be with common licenses.
In the GPL world, LGPL is more compatible than GPL with other code. In the commercial world, the various "Don't sue me if it goes wrong" licenses are the most compatible, e.g. MIT, etc.
Mutliple licenses are best of all, albeit somewhat confusing. If someone is writing a commercial code base, sometimes for legal or company policy reasons, they can't use your code without getting a commercial license from you. MySQL is an example of code base offered under 2 licenses.
Someone should replace the "I'm not a lawyer" boilerplate with "I'm not a lawyer and lawyers are jerks".