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'm thinking about the usage of ikvm.net. While ikvm.net has a license which can be used by commercial applications, openjdk will be developed under GPL.
My question is due to the fact that ikvm.net is delivering an openjdk .net assembly does this effect the application which is going to use ikvm.net?
The following is my personal opinion and may be wrong. I am not a lawyer.
The license of the OpenJDK is GPL+linking exception and not simple GPL. This means you can write commercial application that based on OpenJDK. The writing of commercial application is the cause for the linking exception.
IKVM has also not the problems of Android because the license is not more free like a Apache license. The OpenJDK part is continue under the GPL+linking exception.
The larger problems are the patents. The patents for Java can only used if the TCK passed. IKVM does not pass the TCK. I think never has test it.
But the most patents are invalid. Thanks to Google. The most patents are more related to the VM self and not to the API. Things like Garbage Collection and Reflection are not part or IKVM. This are features of the .NET Framework.
In some weeks we will know more. If Android has no patents problems then IKVM has also no patents problems.
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 want to start making apps for Android and I want to know if I can start safely with free license and see if I can make some money with advertisements inside my apps. So my question is can I do that?
The Community License is free. It does not permit any form of
commercial use. Furthermore, the Community License allows you to
publish free apps on a public market place such as (but not limited
to) Google Play or SlideME.
It seems like kind of commercial use, but then again, the application would be free...
If the answer is no, would you recommend some other way of making apps that would be free? HTML5? Java with Eclipse?
Thanks in advance!
Ads inside your app is considered commercial so you would need the Pro license. You may start without ads with the community license. See how your audience grows and then move to the Pro license when you feel it pays off.
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
I'm interested in Mule ESB but I dont understand the licence, could someone explan me the CPAL licence in simple words?
We have a commercial porduct (JavaEE web application) that neads to be integrated with solutions that are hosting in the cliens environment. For example a clienat has a SAP instalation or any other source of data and want to integrate it with our java web application. We woud like to Mule to achive this functionality, does the CPAL licence allow this?
Our application and Mule could be hosting on our internal machinery or at the clients, both ways are possible.
First: I do not know anything about law.
That said, the CPAL license is based on Mozilla Public License, which is less strict than GPL and you can mix license rather freely as long as the code stays open.
CPAL introduces a concept, that if you run your application with CPAL code in it (Mule for instance), as a "Cloud" service, then you will have to give out the code as well. Simply put, if you alter the Mule source code and host it as a cloud service, you will have to give out your modifications.
I really recommend you to talk to a lawyer in your area (which knows the local laws and immaterial laws etc). However, I do know about a few companies that "bundles" Mule CE with commercial products without concern for license issues in a way very similar to your situation.
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
What is the difference between the Affero General Public License and the GNU General Public License (GPL)?
Assume the following:
You are developing a server side application in GPL. Now this application serves HTML and not an executable which is directly executed on your machine. That means that another guy could take the GPL code, adapt it and does not necessarily need to publish it. Ie. he can create the identical service using your software without violating the GPL. (Although THEN he cannot publish the software itself i.e. selling)
Not so with the AGPL.
This hole in the GPL is often called "Application Service Provider" hole.
Search for "Why AGPL" or "AGPL vs. GPL" or just read this for some real projects who have problems with GPL. The MongoDB tries another interesing thing. They want that people do not fork the core DB (thatwhy AGPL) but the driver which has to be linked with the main program is apache 2.0 licensed so that the mongoDB could be used within commercial application.
Public web application that uses the AGPL are listed at wikipedia.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#AGPL
The GNU Affero General Public License is based on the GNU GPL, but has an additional term to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program. We recommend that people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network.
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 are evaluating PostSharp for logging purposes to use in a our project (implemented in .Net). Currently it is running in production enviroment. Can mixing with PostSharp raise licencing issues? As far as I know it is partially free. Am I wrong? What future licencing problems (i.e. is PostSharp planning to be non-free for future releases) can we face, if there are any?
The PostSharp licensing FAQ explains this in great detail.
Can mixing with PostSharp raise licencing issues?
You're unlikely to have future problems if you don't link to the part that actually does the transformations (that's PostSharp.Core). PostSharp.Laos and PostSharp.Public are what most applications will typically link to.
As far as I know it is partially free. Am I wrong?
It's all free as in beer, unless you (1) link to Core and (2) need to distribute your app outside your company. In that case, you have to buy a license. Core is released under GPL.
See the licensing options, which neatly summarizes answers to both those questions at the top of the page.