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.
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
Background:
This question caused me some sleepless nights over the last month. I'm an independent software developer and have recently finished the work on my first application. I've read a lot of articles about license agreements but I still don't know how to tackle this task in an appropriate way. My application handles user files. In every method I check for consistency & errors and I've betatested it on several systems for more than 6 months. I'm very sure nothing should go wrong, but I want to be on the save side.
Are license agreements by themselves protected by a copyright or can
I just take one and replace the companies name? (All of them look pretty similar to my untrained eyes)
If I'm allowed to use one, am I allowed to edit it?
I don't want my users to be "kept in a cage". I want them to be as free as they could be. For example I want them to be able to freely install my software on all their personal devices.
Where can I find non-Opensource licenses*? I've been searching for a
long time now. I found this Page but it actually confused me more than it helped.
I plan on publishing my app on the Mac-AppStore. Are there licenses
I can't use there?
(As I mentioned above I want a "User License" model that allows the user to install it on all of his Macs)
If you've got any kind of experience with this topic, feel free to share your insights. It's well appreciated!
*Edit: By "non-Opensource licenses" I mean licenses for commercial applications.
1.
You are free to take an existing agreement you find and adapt it to your ends. There is no originality of expression in a licensing agreement itself that would be covered under copyright law preventing your use of its language -- assuming the language fits your circumstances. You should always understand what you're agreeing to. :-)
P.S. Authority: I've worked with large law firms for 20 years as a software developer, licensing my software to them and also consulting with some of them when they had to write contracts for their own clients and didn't undertand the technical issues.
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
I'm looking to package and deploy a portable version of any popular web browser with my application, do you know any web browser that has a license that permit's to distribute it with a commerical application?
There is not much choice nowadays, so you can do your own research and read licenses for currently used browsers.
If you don't want to pay any license fees, you should take a look on Mozilla's Firefox licensing: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
In general, yes, you can redistribute Firefox, under certain conditions. Also see Licencing FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html
Or, take a look on Chromium licensing: http://code.google.com/intl/en-EN/chromium/terms.html
Also, you might want to embed browser's engine in your application (For Mozilla's Gecko read: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/embedding/ , for WebKit, consult your UI widget library, it might have it already; if not, take a look here: http://trac.webkit.org/wiki)
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
So I am almost finished with my first app. It was constructed in Visual Studio/C#. I am now trying to determine which license to run with. I plan to provide the program free of charge to businesses and consumers, however, I do not want to publish the source code.
What is the best licensing format to go with? This application is kind of a teaser for a more powerful version so I would like to publish this one for free and hopefully make some money selling the 'power user' version.
I will be packaging Putty with this. I am about to go read their site as I may need to role my own SSH client.
I will be headed to my lawyer this week. Just want to get a bit of knowledge before I talk to her so I don't look like a dumb fool. Thanks in advance for your input!
Putty uses the MIT licence, so all you need to do is incorporate that licence along with your software. For your code you can use whatever licence you choose, no one will ask for your code unless you explicitly want to make it public.
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