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
Can I build a commercial OS based on FreeBSD? Can I distribute such a system without source code? I dont wanna have any legal issue. What is the true way to distribute a new Os based on freebsd without any legal issue?
The BSD license is a permissive license, so yes, you can base a commercial product upon BSD-licensed code (which, for the most part, FreeBSD is).
Be aware, however, that some of the code in the base FreeBSD distribution is actually licensed under the GPL (or other non-permissive licenses). You would need to ensure that you didn't use any such code in your project.
Yes, you can build a commercial OS based on FreeBSD. You can distribute it without any source code, as long as you distribute it with a notice saying your OS contains FreeBSD code and a copy of the FreeBSD license.
More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to figure this out since a few days now and find no way to do this:
I have a software I want to release under the AGPL so the base system "is open-source", but my software has a plugin interface, where external plugins can be loaded at runtime (so no separation which the GPL would allow).
I now what to make it possible to others to develop non-GPL plugins, as I do not like "this part" of the GPL.
Is there a ways to somehow allow this as an exception to the GPL or in any other way?
Or is there a license which has the same copyleft for the code itself but permits linked software to be under a different license?
I already though of releasing the plugin interface under a different license (like LGPL), but to quote a well know CEO: "The GPL is like cancer". This is not possible, as the plugin interface must be GPL, because it is also linked into the (A)GPL'ed main project.
Could I solve this with some kind of "weird" dual-licensing of the plugin interface?
P.S.: My software is developed using .net 4.5 and C# if that matters anyhow.
You may wish to release the API libraries/assemblies as LGPL, which allows the user to link those in without "tainting" their software, thus the plugins are taint-free, but still requires enhancements to the API libraries to be released.
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.
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 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to trim down FreeBSD to understand/learn how things work. I have a few questions if someone can help me with that:
1) when we say kernel, can I separate code wise from the rest of the FreeBSD code? What I mean is, I want to know what all files/dirs come under kernel.
2) I know a book called Linux from scratch. Is there any related book for FreeBSD?
Any pointers are most welcome.
Thank you.
FreeBSD is one cohesive system. Whereas Linux is a kernel plus a bunch of packages, all of FreeBSD core is built together (everything but the ports tree). The FreeBSD Handbook is the best resource to start from for learning FreeBSD. There is also a Developer's handbook that can be found on the FreeBSD website. As for what the kernel is in terms of source files, anything under /usr/src/sys is kernel source code. If you want to know about the workings of the kernel, the book "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" is the definitive guide to the details of the kernel.
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
What are my obigations if used by commercial software ?
Is it GPLish or closer to ASL 2 ?
IANAL, but the FSF has stated that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. In terms of linking, it seems to have some features of the LGPL (linking from code with a different licence is allowed).
I'd read the legal text very carefully and check with your company's lawyer. Any changes you make to the code itself will have to be CDDL'd as well.
I came to this page via a person asking about the dual licensing of Sun (now Oracle) software under both GPL and CDDL. What this means is that you are free to use the software under the terms of one license or the other, or (as what most people seem to be doing) carry on the dual licensing for downstream users.