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 inquiring into the licensing pertaining to distributing the JDK/JRE from Sun.
The reason I ask is that I would like to provide a client with an ISO disk image that includes my application plus the JDK or JRE dependency.
This is what you need:
Form Sun:
Redistribution: Both the JDK and JRE can be freely redistributed with value-add (per terms of the BCL).
Here's the link
Many people have been bundling the JDK into their applications without paying any fees. The user is not bothered with the licensing issues as the JDK/JRE is already extracted and any other dependency is also bundled.
I often see that question asked but Sun doesn't provide a clear and simple answer to it. "If you would like to embed the JVM in commercial applications, you have to pay some fees". Such a note should be displayed in each download page in my opinion.
So long as you do not modify it and do not charge money for it, you can bundle the installation binary along with your app. The jars are not sufficient.
You can find this information in the Java SE README files.
In particular, this is an extract of the Java 7 JRE README:
[...] you can redistribute the Java SE Runtime Environment for free
with your application, according to the terms of the Oracle Binary
Code License Agreement for the Java SE Platform Products.
Redistribution of JDK is a bit more complicated, please refer to the Redistributable JDK Files section of README file.
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 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've written a Ruby gem that I've licensed under the MIT license, but I think I could greatly improve the test coverage by using an AGPL library in my specs. The actual library code I've written (that would be executed by people using the gem) would never use this AGPL library, it would just be for running the tests in a development environment when running the gem specs.
Is it legal for me to then license my spec code under AGPL while still licensing my library/application code under MIT? Is there anything special I would have to do with regard to my GitHub repository (e.g. a separate repo for the specs) or my .gemspec file (e.g. not bundling the specs and AGPL library with the gem)?
First of all, I am not a lawyer.
Let's assume that the library you're going to use is named L.
Since your application code is not a derivative work of L it is not affected by AGPL's licensing. Therefore you're free to choose rules under which it is distributed.
Your test code is a derivative work of L in the sense of AGPL and as a result if you publish it you have to use terms of AGPL.
Storing files with different licenses in a single repository is not an issue. What is important is to clearly and unambigously state what is the license of each file. The best idea is to put relevant notes both in files' headers and a README or LICENSE file. What I mean is something like
All files in the test directory are published under terms of (...). All remaining files are published under terms of (...) unless otherwise stated.
Remember to add this information in each form of distribution of your project, i.e. a gem file, a tarball and so on. If you have to specify terms under which your whole gem is published you have to provide both licenses. In the terms of a gemspec it would mean
spec.licenses = ['MIT', 'AGPL']
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 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
Can anyone explain to me what does the NSIS licensing terms mean? http://nsis.sourceforge.net/License
So far it seems that the system is usable in commercial products, but the ZLIB/PNG/BZIP2/LZMA/CPL1.0 part confuses me.
Do I have to include a license page with all these licenses in setup that user has to agree with? Or are they for source code modifications only? Or only if you're compressing the data with one of the libraries?
NSIS is a "software" application. The license information provided in the license page describes "use, distribution, modification" cases for NSIS itself. Since you are not distributing "NSIS" but an output file (installer for your application) that is produced by NSIS, you shouldn't include those licenses in your application (and installer).
You don't need to display a nsis specific license in a normal installer (Except if your installer includes the nsis sourcecode I guess)
Everything except the bzip2 and lzma compression is ZLIB/PNG and this is a very open and nice license (This includes the content on the wiki unless stated otherwise IIRC). Unless you are distributing modified versions on nsis itself you probably don't have anything to worry about. (And of course, IANAL & TINLA)