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
Suppose I am releasing software under the A License. The software uses an external library licensed under the B license.
Can I put both licenses, A and B, together in a single file called LICENSE?
No you cannot.
From GNU web site:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible license? (#IfLibraryIsGPL)
Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library.
Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
Libraries are usually released under LGPL instead of GPL because of this restriction. If you include a GPL'ed library, or even a piece of GPL'ed source code in your software, you will need to release your software under GPL.
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 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
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 have an application (or library) with an Lesser GPL v3 license. I'd like to use (and publish it with) an ISCL licensed library. Would this be ok?
Thanks!
ISC is compatible to GPL (and as such, LGPL).
The ISC license is quite simple:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
(from wikipedia)
It doesn't forbid you to sub-license the code or redistribute it under another license. You can thus redistribute along LGPL licensed work, as long as you make sure to preserve the original copyright note.
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
Is it possible to use ObjectListView, which uses the GPL v3 license, legally in a closed-source program that will be sold?
If so, what has to be done to make sure to not violate the license?
ObjectListView has a GPL license so that it is usable by all free software.
Commercial licenses are available, with payment being related to the size of the organisation that wants the licenses.
If you cannot afford any license, we can still work something out. I've never denied a commercial license to anyone who wanted 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 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.