Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

selection of Open Source Licence

  • 20-04-2009 12:58am
    #1
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭


    I want to publish some code on codeplex. So I need a licence they support.

    I need a licence that allows full commercial use.

    I would like to be identified as the author of the code when it is used. So I would like a licence where this is specified, aside from the copyright notice (since the copyright holder could be different in some cases).

    Any advice/suggestions?


Comments

  • #2
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    Apache 2 requires that a notice listing authors is maintained, separate to the copyright notice. That would be most suitable?


  • #3
    croo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭croo


    pwd wrote: »
    I need a licence that allows full commercial use.
    What exactly do you mean by "full commercial use"? Only I don't see how any open source license curtails its commercial use?


  • #4
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    It does. Steve Ballmer has strong feelings on the matter:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft


  • #5
    croo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭croo


    Well just because Steve Ballmer says or thinks something hardly makes it true - quite the opposite I would have thought! Especially when he speaks about open source.

    But any foss license I know doesn't preclude its use in a commercial environment. Perhaps, you could point to some examples of clauses that you believe do? Hence my query of what you mean by "full commercial license" - I'm afraid your links did not clarify that point for me.


  • #6
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    meh I don't know much about open source licences - if i did i wouldn't need to look for help here! Somehow you have turned the tables on me and have me trying to answer your questions instead. I'm onto you now though :p


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    croo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭croo


    Sorry, that wasn't the intent! I genuinely don't understand what you meant by "full commercial use". But I just notice now that you wish to publish on codeplex and that it is "Microsoft's open source project hosting web site" - I'd not heard of it and am, given views of Steve expressed in the link you posted, dubious of its open source credentials. But suddenly the question makes more sense!

    Can I ask why you would not just post your project on a host that does not restrict your choice of license?


  • #8
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    It's a [very small] Silverlight project. It just extends the functionality of one of the built-in controls. So it would only be of interest to people developing Silverlight applications themselves. They're more likely to find it on the Codeplex I think: There's a lot more Silverlight content there than on other open source servers.


  • #9
    croo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭croo


    By the way..
    One of the main difference between the Apache or Mozilla license (MPL) and GPL is that someone can take your Apache or MPL code, modify it and make distributions without including source code!

    I think GPL is the only license that requires the source code to always be included (actually you can distribute binary only versions but you must provide source, including any modifications made, if requested). Without rereading apache & MPL I cannot remember if the original license must be copied with the derivative binary distributed but the source of any modifications must not be distributed.


Advertisement