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.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am developing a web based opensource project. I was considering the AGPL v3, but I explicitly want to prevent commercial use. Non-profit orgs are welcome to use it for free.
It seems to be a common thing in the software world, but I am looking for a pre-written license that I could use or adapt.
Any ideas where I can find such a thing? Are there accepted opensource licenses that fit this criteria?
It is not a good idea to use such a license, because it is sometimes very hard to draw the line between commercial and non-commercial, especially juridically.
However, you may check out Creative Commons licenses.
You won't find any open source licenses that prevent commercial use. That's against the spirit of open source and wouldn't fit into the definition of open source.
There cannot possibly be such a license. Forbidding the use of the source code is the exact opposite of open source. Ergo, there cannot ever possible be an open source license which has such a restriction, and a license which has such a restriction cannot ever possibly be an open source license.
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
Is it possible to use ObjectListView, which uses the GPL v3 license, legally in a closed-source program that will be sold?
If so, what has to be done to make sure to not violate the license?
ObjectListView has a GPL license so that it is usable by all free software.
Commercial licenses are available, with payment being related to the size of the organisation that wants the licenses.
If you cannot afford any license, we can still work something out. I've never denied a commercial license to anyone who wanted one.
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.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
If I have a windows xp computer with a single license (the one dell gave me), if I have 2-3 vm's setup (using vmware) for development purposes, do I have to have licenses for all of them?
Read Microsoft's EULA that came with the OEM license you have.
It most likely says you can only have one copy running at a time. So, yes: you need multiple licenses.
If you're doing development at a company or school, you may be able to use a volume/site license key, however.