31

I am not aware of this "scam" and am not aware of the issue being raised with the Open Source Initiative or other organizations promoting Free and Open Source Software (Free Software Foundation, Software Conservancy, EFF, etc.), nor other related areas such as the open content movement, and the Creative Commons. Of course this does not mean that dubious ...


17

The fact that the software is open source doesn't change anything about the contract that the developer has with their client. If the developer has done the work, the client owes the money. Contracts to deliver custom software (or many other services) often specify several stages of payments and delivery, and allow one party to suspend the contract if the ...


6

IANAL/IANYL, but this looks like an open-and-shut case to me. GPL2s6 says that Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on ...


6

You run this "risk" whenever you put code on Github in a public repository with an open source license -- others can use it. Usually that is what is intended. If you are developing this for a customer, then why would you give them the option to cancel the entire thing when the work is already done? That's a very unusual clause in a contract that's not at ...


5

This is a tough issue that has prevented lots of large companies to move to a more open source business model. Most companies don't understand that just because your code is free doesn't mean you won't make as much money. Options: If you are a sales representative or just a large supporter of open source material. Some things you could do are: explain ...


5

Here are a couple of old articles from lwn.net talking about RedHat and Sveasoft doing the same sort of think as GRsecurity. RedHat trading support for GPL rights Sveasoft and GPL To some, it looks very much like Sveasoft is attempting to add restrictions to the GPL-licensed software it uses for its products. It is, in essence, imposing a penalty on ...


4

The GPLv2 section 6 says to those who redistribute another person's GPL-licensed work: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ...


4

Most legislations differentiate between rights of authorship, distribution (copyright) and usage (license); though terms, definitions and consequences may vary regionally and IANAL: Author's rights (not copyright) can't be sold or transferred in any way, at least in Germany. If you've written the code, then you're the author. Period. In equivalence you can'...


4

Firstly, IANAL/IANYL. That said, Creative Commons says that the NC licence prohibits uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation". They go on to note that CC's definition does not turn on the type of user: if you are a nonprofit or charitable organization, your use of an NC-licensed work could ...


4

Open Source projects are generally about making software, and the licence is the usual and only-meaningful pledge of this good faith. If you give the software to the users along with the four freedoms, they will have everything they need to look after themselves; they will also have a much more solid knowledge of your ideals than any manifesto or ...


3

Cost effectiveness and use of resources. Let's use your example of a DB system. You still need hardware to run it all on. That's a "fixed" cost. Using F/OSS won't really change it. You still need a sysadmin/db admin to install/configure/maintain it - that is a "fixed" cost. A fastastic *nix+Postgres guy might cost a little more than a fantastic Windows+...


3

Many software developers create software for customers, and if the customer wishes as open source. That is no problem, because the customer and the software developer making a contract about it. If anyone is violating the contract (for instance the customer is not paying) it can be end up in court. The situation you describe says between the lines that ...


2

Many great answers, but I just want to add that this "problem" also exists in the proprietary world: Imagine you are requested to develop a Python enterprise application. The customer will probably want to test it in their staging environment, which is very common for enterprise software. Open source or not, the customer has access to your application's ...


2

The way that StackExchange does it is a simple statement that you have read and agree with the Terms of Service when registering for an account. Some sites use a slightly stronger indication by requiring you to check a check-box to indicate you agree with the ToS. This is all very standard for sites that allow the creation of accounts. In the Terms of ...


2

Now as I understand it, this organisation does not need a licence for Highcharts and if I was an employee of this organisation I could just use highcharts to develop a Highcharts enabled website for them. IANAL. But (a) the licensee would normally be the organisation rather than its employers or contract workers. (b) the organisation does need a ...


2

The CC-BY-NC 3.0 license has this to say about non-commercial/commercial use: You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. — CC-BY-NC 3.0 section 4.b So contrary to the Highcharts FAQ it is not relevant what the ...


1

To summarise the comments above, it seems a little odd that your employer is willing to get involved in a professional relationship between you and a third-party. I can see how it's good for you and the third party, since you don't have to form a company and the third party doesn't have to get involved in short-term employment, but it's much less clear what ...


1

I'm looking for ways to communicate to my users that our project is committed to making the world a better place. Are you sure it's not committed to making some piece of software? I mean, sure, that software can be used to make the world a better place, but is that what you mean? Or - do you want to talk about what the organization/contributors do other ...


1

If you release Free/Open Source software, anyone can use it regardless of morals. You can't make a guarantee that your software will be used only for good. Evil people will be able to take it and modify and use it for their own purposes. You can of course run an ethical project. You indicate your support for F/OSS by releasing your software under an ...


1

The open source factor is just a red-herring. As a software developer/contractor you will be paid if, and only if, you deliver the software the client requested. And contrary to most of the answers above, rights to the work you do for a client remain with the client, not with you. Note that I said requested, not wanted, they are two different things and it ...


1

The idea of getting paid when you are finished implies a fixed price contract. Most developers are against this type of contract due to the risk, but I'm not going to go there. What I will say, is that if you're doing fixed price contract, you don't have to produce the source until they pay you. Then they can push it up to a public github account if they ...


1

An important clause which should appear in any work-for-hire contract is that transfer of copyright (in this case "release under an open source license") doesn't happen before the transfer of money. Effectively, your work stays proprietary and doesn't become open source until you are paid. When you publish your work on GitHub under an open source license, ...


1

No, there is not any standard form. Unless the AGPL is in use, there is no problem here. Let's walk through the scenario: start with an open source platform create modifications use those modifications in house to deploy an application The important thing is that there is no distribution of the results. If an organization takes an open platform, modifies ...


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