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 might need to use iTextSharp for a project I'm working on. I'd prefer to use the latest version so I'm trying to understand what the full implications of the GNU Affero General Public License is. I've read though the FSF documents but still have questions. I'm not going to modify it in any way, just call it from a component (windows service) that I've written. This component references other modules from the product I work on.
Currently the component is deployed on a server which runs website instances of the product for our clients. The component does work for all of the sites. We don't plan on distributing the product to clients yet, but it is on our roadmap for the future.
Would the component come under the GNU Affero General Public License when I use iTextSharp and therefore need to be made available for download? Would the other modules from the product referenced by my component come under the license as well?
Basically for the situation I've outlined above what would I need to do to keep within the licence agreement?
Thanks
K
i was also looking into using iTextSharp in a web application.
However the following paragraph from http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/ clarified the licensing implications:
Buying such a license is mandatory as soon as you develop commercial activities involving the iText software without disclosing the source code of your own applications. These activities include: offering paid services to customers as an ASP, serving PDFs on the fly in a web application, shipping iText with a closed source product.
Regards.
iTextSharp uses the LGPL license agreement and not the Affero model, http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/CSharp/PDF/iTextSharp/CatalogiTextSharp.htm , License: GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL) says it right there.
iText is different from iTextSharp and both have separate licenses
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
[Update 2015-01-29]: added some details of the scenario in question.
Just to make sure:
Do the licensen conditions allow to distribute and deploy the crossbar (crossbar.io, wamp, ...) stack in a commercial application?
Given that
We have a commercial application that is web based and consists of several server modules.
crossbar.io could be used to communicate between server processes and web clients.
We do not plan to open source our code
We will not modify crossbar.io
But we would like to deploy crossbar.io along with our product and install it with our setup tool.
Of course we would give credits and link to a local copy of the license file, for example in the about box.
Yes, I have looked at AGPL 3.0 but I have to admit that I am not sure if the answer to my question is plain 'yes' or 'no'.
I am also aware that mongodb uses it. From the mongodb licensing:
To make the above practical, we promise that your client application which uses the database is a separate work. To facilitate this, the mongodb.org supported drivers (the part you link with your application) are released under Apache license, which is copyleft free.
Note: if you would like a signed letter asserting the above promise please contact MongoDB, Inc.
If I understand correctly, in order to use crossbar.io library in our scenario, it is importtant that our proprietary server code is considered 'separate work'.
Is it?
Crossbar.io is licensed under the AGPL 3.0, the same license that e.g. MongoDB uses. The requirements of the AGPL 3.0 are listed in the license text.
Crossbar.io is also available under a commercial license as part of Crossbar.io Enterprise Subscription offered by Tavendo.
Note that connecting a WAMP client to Crossbar.io does not affect, impose requirements on or restrict the license of the client.
Disclaimer: I am original author of Crossbar.io and work for Tavendo.
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 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 using Telerik Rad Controls for Silverlight that is intended to be used in a commercial product which seems perfectly fine as long as I say in the about box that it uses it I believe.
However, Telerik has a folder containing 12 licenses that it uses. Now my question is, do I need to redistribute all of these licenses along with my product also? I am thinking that if you use a number of products each with different licenses that you soon end up having a large number in the finished product. Is that correct?
From my understanding of RadControls, you need to recompile the assemblies using protection that only your app can load. Then you can redistribute the software as long as you give proper copyright messages for telerik:
Taken from the License Agreement for Silverlight
1.3 Redistribution Rights.
1.3.1 Subject to the terms of this Agreement, You are granted a limited license to redistribute the Software solely as part of bundled software solutions for internal company use, hosted applications, commercial solutions deployed at Your Authorized End-Users sites, or shrink-wrapped software offerings in which the Software is integrated (collectively “Integrated Products”). “Integrated Products”, as defined herein, are limited to those software solutions which: (i) are developed by Your Licensed Developers; (ii) add substantial functionality beyond the functionality provided by the incorporated components of the Software; and (iii) are not commercial alternatives for, or competitive in the marketplace with, the Software or any components of the Software.
To recompile the assemblies using protection, you can follow the steps listed on this page - Protecting Telerik RadControls assembly
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 plan to use CKEditor in commercial site. I've read http://ckeditor.com/license but I didn't understand how it is possible to have pricing for commercial use while they offer LGPL(which is good choice for commercial use)
Imagine you want to compile the javascript code of CkEditor into a binary application. Just assume this is possible. Then you would not ship the source code of the library any longer.
If you now even make modifications to the source code to distribute within the binary, you do not satisfy the LGPL as it requires that you provide the source for the library along with your binary. Same for the MPL on the file level.
If you don't want to distribute (your changes in) the source-code form of the library, you then can get a commercial license by the project (you buyout the license).
Next to such specific cases I can imagine that some folks just would like to have a commercial license as form of a backup if their legal department is too much puzzled. If the license is relatively cheap, they can opt for it and continue with their own work w/o being further interrupted. Business, you need to keep it running.
But regarding the LGPL, as long as you offer source (incl. the changes you probably make) of the library, you're fine to use it with non-free programs. So this does not mean that your website must be LGPL it's just using a LGPL'ed library.
You can use it for your commercial website. However, if you build a product and want to include (distribute) CKEditor with it then you might need a commercial license.
The condition whether you need the license is based on your product's license. If your product is closed sourced then including an open source product with it without sharing the source code is illegal. So, this commercial/closed distribution license fills the gap. You pay for it and you can distribute your product with the CKEditor closed sourced. Additionally you may do any closed source modifications to CKEditor.
TL;DR: if you want to modify and distribute it with a commercial license then you need to pay, otherwise you are free to use to for free!
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
This is more of a licencing issue than a code question. I really like the ckeditor editor and would like to use it in my freelance projects which I do for clients. However upon reading the license page it has me in a bit of a confusion. DO I have to buy licences if I intend to use this in cms websites that I build myself and hand over to clients?
If so then what are my alternate options which don't cost anything?
Its should be ok, if you don't change anything of its source, IMHO.
Integrating CKEditor in commercial
software, taking care of satisfying
the Open Source licenses terms, while
not able or interested on supporting
CKEditor and its development.
I am not a lawyer, but the dual licensing model would appear to not prevent you from using the open source licensed CKEditor in your cms / client projects, as long as the terms of the chosen license are met.
What you cannot do is sell, give away or otherwise distribute the editor to third parties without providing them with access to the source code and the license attached to the product.