46

No free/open-source license may disallow commercial use. The whole purpose of the Free and Open movements is an altruistic one: if you're making your project free and open, you're gifting it to the public at large, under certain terms (which often boil down to "attribute it back to me"). See the Open Source Definition for some explanation of what these ...


21

Commercial support is support offered on a business basis, to meet business needs. Commercial support is not compulsory, and indeed many (I'd say most) open source projects do not advertise this. On the other hand, if the writer of the software (or skilled contributors) would like to make money doing what they are great at, and people want to pay them, ...


11

Yes you can (but with big caveats) There are several licences that disallow commercial use of the software (or other intellectual property). Most notably CC BY-NC 3.0 but please keep in mind that it's generally not recommended to use CC BY-NC 3.0 licence for software (you still can!). There are several problems associated with this kind of licensing though ...


11

MongoDB requires contributors to sign a contributor agreement where they have to waive all rights so that MongoDB can license the code subsequently under whatever license they see fit. That includes non-free licenses which allows them to sell proprietary extensions which would otherwise be in violation of the GPL, if they had to abide by it.


11

There is uncertainty about whether or not dynamic linking makes a derivative work and thus engages the GPL (pro, con). But reading the python module's README, it seems to me that the developers have already thought carefully about this. Although pdf2image does use poppler, it only uses two commands, which it invokes through userspace ("A python module ...


7

Making your software available under free and open source terms means the legal terms under which you make your software available meet certain standards (namely, the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI's Open Source Definition). Those definitions allow commercial reuse/distribution, so any legal terms that don't allow commercial reuse will not fall within the ...


7

The FSF includes Freedom #1 in their Free Software Definition: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A software artifact is not inherently free or nonfree, but the terms under which it is possible (legally and practically) to use, ...


6

Copyleft terms like those in the GNU GPL place obligations on distribution of the software. Therefore, copyleft terms place an incentive to purchase an exception (i.e., a separate, non-copyleft license) only when the recipient expects to distribute the software further. For example, Qt is a collection of UI components that are available under the GPL, so ...


6

As far as I am able to understand the author, the specific claims being made here are: Some have claimed that it conflicts with AGPL. There exist some people who claim the AGPL "conflicts" with the Commons Clause. Assuming the author here means "is incompatible with" as the FSF uses the phrase, this is true: there do exist such people, ...


6

The GPL does not restrict how you may use the software, it only places conditions how you can distribute or modify the software. Thus, using a GPL-covered IDE to produce proprietary software is perfectly fine. Similarly, it is well-established that using GPL-covered compilers (like GCC) to compile proprietary software is perfectly fine. An editor, IDE, or ...


5

The reason why software must have a license is because two actions are otherwise not allowed by copyright law: Distributing software (giving others exact copies) Distributing modified versions The license of CanvasJS permits distribution under certain conditions. For the developer license, You are allowed to distribute CanvasJS Software along with your ...


5

I plan to publish the complete source code along with documentation and build instructions on github. The intent is to give it away for free [...] and offer [existing users] as well as prospective new customers my services for additional development, maintenance and support. Which license model should I select, to best match this intent? Any free ...


5

Files that are read as data by the application (i.e. the files may unlock/trigger behavior, but they don't add new behavior or code) are considered independent works of authorship. This means that those files are not affected by the copyright license of the application. It is not needed that the data files reside in a different directory as the application ...


5

Copyright law is centered around making a copy of something and then doing things with that copy. How such a copy is made is usually not specified in the copyright laws, which makes that a "mental copy", where a work is read and then what was memorized is reproduced, can be regarded as a copy as well. As copyright law works on actually making a ...


5

I don't think it does, no. As the GPL FAQ makes clear: An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are nonfree or GPL-incompatible... pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are ...


4

If your application does not rely on those as an integral part and the sound files are not distributed with your application: no issue. Just offers your user the possibility to use whatever sound source they personally are comfortable with, and you're fine; it is also permissible to provide some default sources. The sound files are only data the users work ...


4

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. GPL is a copyleft license. It means that you legally obliged to distribute derivative work under the same or equivalent license (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works for instance). LGPL is a more relaxed license in this regard and allows ...


4

The GPL license states that if you use a library that is licensed under the GPL, then your code is considered to be a derived work of that library. If you decide to provide your scripts to someone else, then the GPL license requires that you give every recipient the right and the means to make further changes. You must provide source code and you must use a ...


4

There is now a license specifically designed to create source-available software for non-commercial use, namely the Commons Clause License. There have been some very strong characters in the history of open source software(!), but after cutting through all the messianic zeal, there is at least one very good reason for requiring open-source or free software ...


4

If someone asks you to print the model then you are likely in the clear. The 2nd and 9th circuit courts have decided that a non-commercial entity can contract a for profit entity to make their copy, and as long as the entity doing the copying is working within their normal parameters, they are not using the work commercially. So you definitely can't sell ...


4

No, but you can get close enough: you can prevent your Open Source project from getting included in a closed-source project (for example, by using a GPL license), and then offer a dual-license option for companies who don't want to release their own proprietary code as open source. MySql follows this model, and has since before Oracle bought them.


4

What does it mean by commercial support and is it compulsory for any open-source project to have commercial support? No, obviously not. An open source project may be a fifty line python script you wrote to solve your own problem, that you publish for others to use. No support included; just the right to use it. Should we have to pay for such commercial ...


3

Can I [show ads] or [sell my software for money]? Yes. See GPL FAQ - Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? You can also show ads, but remember that the GPL requires you to publish source. So if a customer does not like the fact that you show ads, she is allowed to recompile your app without that feature enabled. Or she is allowed ...


3

A bit more research shows that the previous version of my answer was based on an incorrect assumption. JBoss EAP is actually also licensed under the LGPL license, sames as the WildFly product that it is based upon. The LGPL license does not require that source code is provided to the general public, nor that the software is provided at no cost. The ...


3

I'm fairly sure I know what it means, but I have as yet no examples of its use. I think it's designed for use cases along the lines of Cygnus, where a company distributes another party's (A)GPLv3 code to customers who are paying for a support contract, or for some other assumption of responsibility, for issues with the code. Such parties as Cygnus are "...


3

You can create and distribute proprietary software using most libraries that ship with mingw. In general, if you are using a library (which includes libstdc++, libgcc and libwinpthread in your question) your program is subject to the license of the library. If the library is distributed under GPL, your program would also be subject to GPL. Because of this, ...


3

All free / open source software can be sold. If you're distributing GPL software then you have to make the source code available to those who receive it. If your code is merely running in a VBox instance then you won't be bound by VBox' license, though if you use other free software libraries make sure you follow their licenses too. With VirtualBox the one ...


3

There are a few solutions: Qt is released under both a commercial license and the LGPL. Many companies find the LGPL license too contaminating (must release derivative works, no static-linking, must provide sources if distributing binaries, yada, yada, yada) so they pay significant amounts to Qt to have a commercial license instead. Another option is to ...


3

Yes this kind of licensing is probably allowed, but no, you likely cannot use the software for commercial purposes. The Apache 2.0 license only applies to that component itself. It is a permissive license that allows combination with software under other licenses, even if that license is copyleft or proprietary. All the Apache license requires is that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible