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 using AndEngine in my Android app. I found that this library is distributed under GNU Lesser GPL.
What should I write in my about view to conform this license?
http://www.gnu.org already provides that information. Here's the link for that. In this link you may find a brief explanation of how to place a program under several licenses including GNU Lesser GPL.
EDIT: I checked some examples of LGPL'ed software in Ubuntu and their about boxes.
LibreOffice just prints some copyright information in the about box. Nevertheless, they have an option just to show the license information (also available online), where it shows the following:
Licensing and Legal information
This product is made available subject
to the terms of GNU Lesser General Public License Version 3. A copy of
the LGPL license can be found below.
Jump to LGPL Version 3
Wine has the following information in its about box (also online):
Wine is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at
your option) any later version.
I think what you should do is link (ie to a web page) to the LGPL libraries you use to make it easy for your customers to access its source code if they wish. This seems to be the top priority for the FSF (the end user having the right to see the source). Other than that, it is my understanding that linking your code with this LGPL-licensed library is completely okay for a closed-source program, which is why they are discouraging the use of LGPL for new libraries now.
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
We will develop one commercial software for one company, and this software will be sold to customers of the company. This software contains font-end JS/HTML based codes and back-end C++ codes. We want to use ExtJS4.2 to develop font-end module.
We will not modify ExtJS code itself and just use it for the library, but I don't know if extending ExtJS type/class will be treated as "modifying ExtJS".
If we do not want to make back-end codes open source, which license do we need?
If we have to use Commercial License, Could we first use GPLv3 to try the ExtJS for learning and training privately in company, and use Commercial license when we decide to release software and begin to charge?
If we have to use Commercial License, which kind of Commercial License do we need to buy? We have one team containing several people to develop font-end module.
"Could we first use GPLv3 to try the ExtJS for learning and training privately in company, and use Commercial license when we decide to release software and begin to charge?"
Not according to Sencha's own commercial license. See this section of http://www.sencha.com/legal/sencha-sdk-software-license-agreement
"The Open Source version of the Software (“GPL Version”) is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License versions 3.0 (“GPL”) and not under this Agreement. If You, or another third party, has, at any time, developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using the GPL Version, You may not combine such development work with the Software and must license such Application(s) (or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3, a copy of which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html."
I think all your questions are answered here.
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
The question is specific to using these tools to develop commercial software.
The source or the binaries of the GPL licensed tool does not become part of the commercial software in anyway.
I do not want to modify the GPL licensed tool.
For example, an C/C++ development IDE that is licensed under GPL. Can I use this IDE to develop commercial software?
Other specific examples of tools I'd like to use are: Doxygen, Eclipse, etc.
Short answer: yes.
From Gnu Faq1
Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free
programs?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools
does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions,
legally, on the license you use for your code.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons
—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program
into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is
covered by the same license that covers it in the source code.
Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's
input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs.
This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of
the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without
restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools
comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs.
The GPL allows that. However, some programs or libraries may include additional restrictions. So, I think you can't answer it generally for all programs that are under GPL.
Doxygen and Eclipse are OK, though.
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 found some code that is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY 3.0).
I want to pick it and put it into a program that I downloaded that is licensed under GPL v2+.
Then I want to publicly distribute the remixed work in one software-package under GPL v2+ (GPL v2 or at the users wish a later version) again.
I'm Wondering if it is possible or not. I was already looking for license-compatiblity on the GNU website, but it has only some information about the CC-BY 2.0 License:
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY)
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
In that statement it's written that CC-BY 2.0 is incompatible with GPL-
So is the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license incompatible with the GNU GPL v2 or later as well?
More Details
Update: It has been asked to add some more specific details to this question, here they are:
The example bit of code that is under CC-BY 3.0 is here: example-so-5462305.php.
The code I'd like to integrate this into is here: Joomla_1.6.1-Stable-Full_Package.zip
My questions about license compatibility is about to incorporate [1.] into [2.] (become part of existing code in form of a PHP class member), create a patch, add it to the publicly known repository of the project that is driving [2.] and expect it to get released then with a future version of [2.].
It is impossible to answer unless you give some details about the bits of code you consider and how they will be combined and depend on each other.
Can you provide specifics about each piece of code? Urls, etc?
For instance the famfamafam silk icons (not really software per se) are under a CC-BY license (CC BY 2.5). They are often combined with GPL-licensed code and nobody seems to care too much.
Some other pointers to relevant discussions:
Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
https://superuser.com/questions/113591/is-it-ok-to-use-images-of-gpld-code-in-a-cc-3-0-by-video
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
How would one follow the proper steps in order to license a "package" under the terms of Artistic License 2, as published by the Perl Foundation.
Is there a guide, such as GNU's GPL how-to that I'm missing?
I've only found CPAN's Licensing Guide, I believe it would apply for external use too, wouldn't it?
Otherwise, I presume adding a notice at the start of each source code file, and including a copy of the license itself with the distribution would do the trick.
Still, since licensing is quite an important issue, I'd like to hear any views on this.
Before I start, I must warn you I'm not a lawyer.
As far as I know, the way you communicate the license to others is not dependent on any specific license. If you're the sole author of the work, you hold the copyright and have the exclusive rights to decide what is allowed with respect to distribution, modification etc. You can communicate your decision through a well known licence to help potential users of your work understand the terms of usage.
From a practical view, adding a copyright notice to the distribution & copyright headers pointing to that notice to source files should be enough. Also, the licence should be clearly mentioned on the site where you provide download of the distribution.
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 setting up a new project and I want to choose a license that is as limiting as possible while still being open source.
Apache License 2.0
Artistic License/GPL
Eclipse Public License 1.0
GNU General Public License v2
GNU General Public License v3
GNU Lesser General Public License
MIT License
Mozilla Public License 1.1
New BSD License
AGPL .. the most restrictive one
This really depends on what you mean by 'restrictive.' If you mean, which one make it hardest to use free code in your proprietary application without giving credit to the authors of the code - its the GPL. The opposite of that would be the BSD license. However, I like that license because it makes it harder for people to use my hard work for free without contributing derivative works back to the world. It's free as in 'free speech' - not free beer. So, if you are looking for free beer, stay away from GPL code.