Open Source Licenses
-
Richie308 wrote:
My client would like me to co-opt some open source package to use in his commercial product.
GPL definitly does not fit your usage. For others you have a few questions to answer. 1) Will any modifications of the open source code happen? If so at least that part of the work is often under the same lic as the original. 2) How does distribution occur? If you can give instructions to aquire the right packages (i.e. you do not distribute the open source code) and then add your code into installed system. You likely avoid questionable conditions. If you must distribute it all then you have to read closer. In any cases I highly recommend you define what is your private code and how the open source code is utilized. Then do a review of what is in the code you plan to distribute! More than once we have found GPL code included in the source of non-GPL licensed code. Document what you have reviewed and pay the legal counsel for his time. In a worst case senario, you at least can now show due-diligence on your part. It really is cheap insurance.
Do you think there is any chance that I could be held responsible even though it is my client's product?
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Do you think there is any chance that I could be held responsible even though it is my client's product?
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
Do you think there is any chance that I could be held responsible
Yes, they are paying you for your guidance. Can you get an indemnity clause added to your contract? If not just make sure you document that you told them you are NOT legal counsel and they should seek that advice.
-
Richie308 wrote:
Do you think there is any chance that I could be held responsible
Yes, they are paying you for your guidance. Can you get an indemnity clause added to your contract? If not just make sure you document that you told them you are NOT legal counsel and they should seek that advice.
Wow. Thanks man, I didn't realize that. I will make sure to tell them that right away.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
My head is spinning from all the different types of open source licenses there are. My client would like me to co-opt some open source package to use in his commercial product. Which open source license allows such use?
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
LGPL works..
-
My head is spinning from all the different types of open source licenses there are. My client would like me to co-opt some open source package to use in his commercial product. Which open source license allows such use?
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Richie308 wrote:
My client would like me to co-opt some open source package to use in his commercial product.
GPL definitly does not fit your usage. For others you have a few questions to answer. 1) Will any modifications of the open source code happen? If so at least that part of the work is often under the same lic as the original. 2) How does distribution occur? If you can give instructions to aquire the right packages (i.e. you do not distribute the open source code) and then add your code into installed system. You likely avoid questionable conditions. If you must distribute it all then you have to read closer. In any cases I highly recommend you define what is your private code and how the open source code is utilized. Then do a review of what is in the code you plan to distribute! More than once we have found GPL code included in the source of non-GPL licensed code. Document what you have reviewed and pay the legal counsel for his time. In a worst case senario, you at least can now show due-diligence on your part. It really is cheap insurance.
Wow! So being "Open Source" doesn't simply mean "we can download the code, change it, and make a commercial program based on the modified code"??? Is there any "open source" license that gives us such a right? TIA,
Mehdi Mousavi - Software Architect [ http://mehdi.biz ]
-
Wow! So being "Open Source" doesn't simply mean "we can download the code, change it, and make a commercial program based on the modified code"??? Is there any "open source" license that gives us such a right? TIA,
Mehdi Mousavi - Software Architect [ http://mehdi.biz ]
Mehdi Mousavi wrote:
Is there any "open source" license that gives us such a right?
To blindly copy, modify and make private, NO. Software put into the public domain is the closest you will find. Conditions to look for are usage, modification and distribution. Spending time with good legal counsel whom you can understand and talk with, is not bad.
-
LGPL works..
-
Richie308 wrote:
Do you think there is any chance that I could be held responsible
Yes, they are paying you for your guidance. Can you get an indemnity clause added to your contract? If not just make sure you document that you told them you are NOT legal counsel and they should seek that advice.
That is great advice! Where I work we are required to get approval before adding any open-source or third-party code. But in a small project when you are the 'approver'... try to shift this approval process further up the chain! On creativecommons.org there are some understandable (but still only 'interpretations' and not legal equivalents) of common licenses, e.g. LGPL[^].
-
My head is spinning from all the different types of open source licenses there are. My client would like me to co-opt some open source package to use in his commercial product. Which open source license allows such use?
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
The licenses I choose from: A) BSD or MIT/X11: These two licenses are very similar are allow any use. Someone can take your code, improve it and sell the result as closed-source project. B) GPL: very strict usage rules. Anyone using the library must give anyone having the binaries the same rights for their whole product that you gave them for your library. (The GPL defines "using" as shipping with the product or being "combined" with the product [linking to the library etc.], except calling GPL .exe's is fine for non-GPL apps.) This means they must open-source the whole product and allow free redistribution. The GPL is a good choice for open source tools, but don't use it for libraries. The GPL is the horror of any legal department because it tries to define exactly how a product might (not) be combined with the GPL-software (dynamically linking vs. statically linking -> both not allowed, etc.) and is generally hard to understand. C) LGPL: just like the GPL, but replace "their whole product" with "their version of the library". This means: modifications to the library must be open-source, but the library can be used in closed-source products. LGPL is fine to use for libraries if you want to force improvements to the library to be open-source but allow usage in commercial closed-source software; however the "horror for legal department" argument still applies. BTW: "commercial" is misleading because it is possible to develop an open-source GPL product commercially -- make money by selling support (e.g. MySQL)
Last modified: 11mins after originally posted --
-
Mehdi Mousavi wrote:
Is there any "open source" license that gives us such a right?
To blindly copy, modify and make private, NO. Software put into the public domain is the closest you will find. Conditions to look for are usage, modification and distribution. Spending time with good legal counsel whom you can understand and talk with, is not bad.
BSD does allow exactly that. Part of the initial network stack in Microsoft Windows 95 was taken from a BSD licensed *nix. Most open source licenses do not. For instance GPL does not. Apache does not. CDDL does not. LGPL kind of can as long as it is a library and you distribute (or make available) the source of the library and the license. Other licenses require you only to acknowledge the source, send the writer a postcard, buy them a beer etc. Get a lawyer to let you know the ramifications if you are in doubt. Otherwise, don't use other people's code in a proprietory software development. The ramifications of infringement vary from private hand slapping, public shaming to law suits. Often in that order if you ignore reqests to remove the code. Kent Bolton
-
BSD does allow exactly that. Part of the initial network stack in Microsoft Windows 95 was taken from a BSD licensed *nix. Most open source licenses do not. For instance GPL does not. Apache does not. CDDL does not. LGPL kind of can as long as it is a library and you distribute (or make available) the source of the library and the license. Other licenses require you only to acknowledge the source, send the writer a postcard, buy them a beer etc. Get a lawyer to let you know the ramifications if you are in doubt. Otherwise, don't use other people's code in a proprietory software development. The ramifications of infringement vary from private hand slapping, public shaming to law suits. Often in that order if you ignore reqests to remove the code. Kent Bolton
Kent Bolton wrote:
BSD does allow exactly that.
Depends on how far you want to take it. "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." I.E they not you own the license of the modified code. Yes you are free own and license added code that uses the BSD code. Ref: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/[^]
-
Kent Bolton wrote:
BSD does allow exactly that.
Depends on how far you want to take it. "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." I.E they not you own the license of the modified code. Yes you are free own and license added code that uses the BSD code. Ref: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/[^]
You are spot on Michael. However, there is no requirement to include the source code, so you can rebadge a BSD product, release the binaries and say that you developed it, with a small copyright notice somewhere in your documentation and/*or* somewhere else attributing some of the code to others (eg Help | about | licenses | Thanks). wikipedia tells it best: "The BSD License allows proprietary commercial use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary commercial products. Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements). Some notable examples of this are the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, and the use of numerous FreeBSD components in Mac OS X." Kent Bolton
