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.
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 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 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 looking at different types of linux to run a small web server on, however I have a question as I am a bit confused about how the GPL works. If I have PHP scripts that I created myself, etc...running on the linux server, do those automatically become part of the GPL, or are those still mine to do with as I please? How about if I need to make a copy of the system, as is, by making a disk image, to install it on another computer of mine? Does that mean that all my work would become part of the GPL?
First of all it is very likely that your Linux system will run Apache, which is not licensed under terms of GPL, but Apache license. Apache itself does not run PHP scripts. In fact lots of functionality is provided by third-party modules and this applies to PHP too, which is handled by mod_php. Those modules are allowed to be distributed under their own licenses. And PHP utilizes this being distributed under terms of PHP license. PHP license is not permissive (or not copyleft), which means that you may distribute your scripts under any license you wish, with very little restrictions like including in your product a statement:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from <http://www.php.net/software/>
So basically no, your software will not become a part of GPL in any way.
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 12 years ago.
Improve this question
i want to publish my software under a opensource license with the following conditions:
you are allowed to:
Share — to copy, distribute and
transmit the work
use a modified
version of the code in your
application
you are not allowed to:
publish modified versions of the code
use the code in anything commercial
is there a software license out there that fits my needs ?
Having a noncommercial clause is against the spirit of opensource. So no, there isn't. And if you do make one yourself then you should not be calling it opensource but instead call it a non-commercial license.
There are in fact code with the kind of licensing you are talking about and there are widely recognised by the opensource community as being non-opensource. MINIX (by Tanenbaum) is one of them. The code is freely available and public and anyone can see but have severe restrictions on re-publishing modifications. MINIX is widely considered to be a closed-source piece of code.
Lots of commercial, proprietay, closed-source embedded operating systems are actually distributed as code and have only copyright laws protecting them (instead of complex, byzantine DRM). Just the fact that people can see your source code does not make it open source.
One last example. Windows (including XP, Vista and Seven). Microsoft makes the source code Windows available to anyone who needs it for non-commercial, educational purposes provided you sign an NDA. Their source license sounds a lot like what you want. Check out the license here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx. I doubt anyone would argue that Windows is opensource.
You can publish code under any licence you want but it will only be F/OSS, Open Source, if it complies with the OSI definition : http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Your conditions are incompatible in several ways.
Take note that almost all players in Open Software use OSI-compliant licences - you would be going completely against all current opinion and practice.