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
If i want to use a public license, is it as easy as copying the license and putting it in my source code/making a new file, or is there something special i need to do to use it?
Here's a guide on how to use GNU licenses in your project. From the guide:
The process involves adding two
elements to each source file of your
program: a copyright notice (such as
“Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a
statement of copying permission,
saying that the program is distributed
under the terms of the GNU General
Public License (or the Lesser GPL).
Other public licenses should be similar, but be sure to check the website of the license you're using for specifics.
Just need to include the license and comply with it.
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
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
Point three for example:
Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may
be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without
specific prior written
permission.
Thanks for any advice.
Have you considered using the MIT License as an alternative? It seems (to my eyes) to say about the same thing, but without the organization section.
When I used the BSD license I just reworded it so that it didn't mention organization.
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.
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
This page summarizes different license types' terms (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc):
http://www.codeproject.com/info/Licenses.aspx
Say I write a program for sale that uses a software under one of the licensing types where "Can be used in commercial applications:" is true, and "Can be used in proprietary (closed source) applications:" is true.
Then if the "Bug fixes / extensions must be released to the public domain:" line is true, what does it mean to me? What am I required to do?
Thank you.
This will usually mean that if you build a patch or other modification of the program and want to distribute it you must also publish the sources of that modification under a license explicitly mentioned in the program license text.
In some license types this includes both the other program and any program using that (including your program). In others (like LGPL) this will only be required only for modification made to that program, but not to your program if they are separated (LGPL is typically used for libraries and doesn't enforce publishing the library consumers).
simply:
you can sell (and release with your own commercial license) your own app built with the provided code.
but:
you can not improve on the code (of the software you are using within your app) directly and not give it to public domain (usually it is in the original license of the software).
Instead of relying on those summaries, you would be advised to carefully read the license for any open source license you plan to use in a closed source product.
For instance, LGPL does not actually require you to release source code changes to the public domain. Rather, it requires you to release them under the terms of the LGPL.
If you are nor sure that you understand the implications of a particular license, talk to your company's lawyers.
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.