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.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have built a small program for plotting data from serial port using Qt and QCustomPlot. I am an engineering student, and I had a project that required me to manipulate data from the ADC of an mbed, so I built this app for my convenience and for experience. I would like to share it with other people who need such a tool (will put it on the mbed website).
I am not a programmer and I do not know a thing about licenses. The QCustomPlot is under GPL. I read that I cannot use static linkage with the GPL licence for QT; I do not intend to, (I will post the source too), but would like to include a statically built version of the program for people who would rather just use the program.
So without going in too much detail, what can I do? Also, do I need to include any disclaimers in my source?
First of all: choose a license for your software. The website http://choosealicense.com can help you in doing that.
Usually a license requires to add a text header to your source code files. This is just a fragment of text which shows the terms of the license right within the source code.
Also, a license.txt file is often required in which the full license has to be pasted. Anyway choosealicense.com clearly explains what to do.
Notice that some licenses (e.g. the GPL) need that a list of changes is added to your source code. This list has to be mantained through the entire life of your software distribution and updated when you provide new releases.
When you are ready with your package use a website like GitHub to distribute it as a source code.
Do not include binaries. Just add the source code and a README file in which you explain how to compile them.
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 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.
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
How would one follow the proper steps in order to license a "package" under the terms of Artistic License 2, as published by the Perl Foundation.
Is there a guide, such as GNU's GPL how-to that I'm missing?
I've only found CPAN's Licensing Guide, I believe it would apply for external use too, wouldn't it?
Otherwise, I presume adding a notice at the start of each source code file, and including a copy of the license itself with the distribution would do the trick.
Still, since licensing is quite an important issue, I'd like to hear any views on this.
Before I start, I must warn you I'm not a lawyer.
As far as I know, the way you communicate the license to others is not dependent on any specific license. If you're the sole author of the work, you hold the copyright and have the exclusive rights to decide what is allowed with respect to distribution, modification etc. You can communicate your decision through a well known licence to help potential users of your work understand the terms of usage.
From a practical view, adding a copyright notice to the distribution & copyright headers pointing to that notice to source files should be enough. Also, the licence should be clearly mentioned on the site where you provide download of the distribution.
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 a commercial Java application which I will be distributing.
I want to use an LGPL'd java library.
I wont be modifying the library.
Does the LGPL license of that library have any impact on my application's license?
Yes, it does to a certain degree. You are e.g required to allow people to upgrade the LGPL'd library without your help. I suggest reading through the whole license yourself, as you're legally obligated to adhere to it's clauses. Know what you oblige yourself to, don't just take other people's words for it :)
As far as I understand the LGPL, no, you can distribute it however you like. You will only be linking to the library, not creating a derivative work, and the LGPL doesn't restrict linking.
There is no impact on your application. LGPL license allows inclusion in commercial application as long as the terms of the license are fulfilled (LGPL license text in the distribution, indication of the use of the library, etc).
My guess is that as long as your linking is dynamic (i.e. dynamic loading of the .dll/.so/.a/.class/whatever file at runtime), you're OK. If you statically compile your code to include the library, you're at risk of violating the license, depending on how your code is structured.
If it's Java, however, you can not link statically - it's an impossibility of the platform.