I am not a lawyer, but I have quite a bit of experience in open source and
could probably answer most of your questions. I would also suggest checking
out the mailing list on the OSI website. http://opensource.org/lists
I also know that Andrew Perry who specialises in open source licensing
issues. http://legalconsult.com.au
If by "risk" you mean "risk of code being stolen", then it's a fairly
simple thing:
BSD/MIT - both basically mean that anyone can use your code in any
application (closed source/open source etc)
GPL2/3 - basically means that if you use that code in your
application, you have to open source your application
LGPL - basically means that you can use that library with closed
source applications only if you dynamically link to it - otherwise you
have to open source your application
If you mean "legal risk", well then I can only say: they are all
fairly well thought out licenses to protect the people that write and
publish the code.
your point assumes you're creating a compiled application...which is possibly the minority of software startups nowadays.
This allows for many other shades of grey and other benefits... 8)
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 11:23 +1100, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > GPL2/3 - basically means that if you use that code in your > application, you have to open source your application
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Create & manage your own Augmented Reality layer with just a few clicks http://buildAR.com - Extend your reality -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are right. GPL3 introduced some additions, in particular for
hosted applications. So, using GPL3 versioned code in a Web app may
not be allowed.
I was indeed not replying to all the possibilities. It's impossible
really to give advice without more information.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Rob Manson <roB...@mob-labs.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Silvia,
> your point assumes you're creating a compiled application...which is
> possibly the minority of software startups nowadays.
> This allows for many other shades of grey and other benefits... 8)
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 11:23 +1100, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> GPL2/3 - basically means that if you use that code in your
>> application, you have to open source your application
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create & manage your own Augmented Reality layer with just a few clicks
> http://buildAR.com - Extend your reality
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your quick responses, I'll be contacting you offline.
Rex Chung
CEO and Founder
Ankoder - Video Encoding On Demand
http://www.ankoder.com --------------------------------------
Sydney: +61 421 591 943
HK: +852 6901 2682
Twitter: @rexchung @ankoder
> Yes, you are right. GPL3 introduced some additions, in particular for
> hosted applications. So, using GPL3 versioned code in a Web app may
> not be allowed.
> I was indeed not replying to all the possibilities. It's impossible
> really to give advice without more information.
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Rob Manson <roB...@mob-labs.com.au> wrote:
>> Hi Silvia,
>> your point assumes you're creating a compiled application...which is
>> possibly the minority of software startups nowadays.
>> This allows for many other shades of grey and other benefits... 8)
>> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 11:23 +1100, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> GPL2/3 - basically means that if you use that code in your
>>> application, you have to open source your application
>> --
>> Rob Manson
>> Managing Director
>> MOB - start something!
>> Innovative mobile & online business
>> http://MOB-labs.com.au
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Create & manage your own Augmented Reality layer with just a few clicks
>> http://buildAR.com - Extend your reality
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...your point assumes you're creating a compiled application...which > is > possibly the minority of software startups nowadays.
And your point assumes that the GPLs definition of a "derivative work" applies only to compiled code.
Frankly, nobody knows what constitutes a derivative work with respect to the GPL. In the compiled world, you've got the static-vs-dynamic linking debate. In the non-compiled world, you've got projects like Drupal / Wordpress imposing same-license restrictions on modules/ plugins/themes, claiming they're derivative works.
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 17:10 +1100, Nathan de Vries wrote:
> On 25/10/2009, at 12:06 PM, Rob Manson wrote:
> > ...your point assumes you're creating a compiled application...which
> > is
> > possibly the minority of software startups nowadays.
> And your point assumes that the GPLs definition of a "derivative work"
> applies only to compiled code.
> Frankly, nobody knows what constitutes a derivative work with respect
> to the GPL. In the compiled world, you've got the static-vs-dynamic
> linking debate. In the non-compiled world, you've got projects like
> Drupal / Wordpress imposing same-license restrictions on modules/ > plugins/themes, claiming they're derivative works.
|
