Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #39841

Any software law experts?

Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	2022-11-08 06:00 -0800
Message-ID	<fee4fd9f-8b60-4703-9c7b-2551cff7ee37n@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Any software law experts?
From	"e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Licenses are confusing. I'm reading about the AGPL, and it sounds like it's saying you must release your source code to anyone who has access to your binaries if you write code that modifies the software using the AGPL license (this is how MPL works?). Then I'm reading you must make the source of anything you write that depends on unmodified AGPL code available to all users of your code.

Then we have the sketchy iText code. The maven repo says iText v2.1.7 is licensed under MPL 1.1, version 4.2.0 under MPL 2.0 with an added LGPL 3.0, and v4.2.2 they switched to AGPL. Now they say on their website you can use their binary code as is for your own app only if you make your source available to all your users or pay them an annual fee. They claim they had to switch to the license because their original MPL license was illegal, so while technically v2.1.7 is still available claiming MPL license, use it at your own risk.

Now we have jasperreports using LGPL and including iText v2.1.7, and dynamicreports using jasperreports. So if you scroll down the maven repo page for jasperreports it shows iText using AGPL license even though it's on v2.1.7, and if you scroll down the dynamicreports repo page it doesn't show any AGPL. Now, if a company wants to use dynamicreports, do they need to pay for iText licensing?

Do you need to pay to use any version of iText, or disclose your own custom source) if you're using their binaries unmodified, developing an app for a business for a contract exclusive to another business, where the sole users of the app will be members of that business?

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 06:00 -0800
  Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-08 19:32 -0500
    Re: Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 04:21 -0800
      Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-09 14:38 -0500
        Re: Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 11:51 -0800
          Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-09 16:12 -0500
    Re: Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 04:53 -0800
      Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-09 14:34 -0500
        Re: Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 11:42 -0800
          Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-09 14:50 -0500
            Re: Any software law experts? "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 11:55 -0800
              Re: Any software law experts? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2022-11-09 20:21 -0500

csiph-web