Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #39842

Re: Any software law experts?

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/8/2022 9:00 AM, e.d.pro...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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?

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a huge disclaimer.

There are 3 fundamental types of open source licenses:
* permissive (Apache, MIT, BSD etc.)
* weak copy left (LGPL, GPL with linking exception, MPL etc.)
* strong copy left (GPL, AGPL)

With permissive licenses you can freely mix the open
source and your proprietary code. There may be a requirement
to mention the open source and its license, but that should
not be a problem.

With weak copy left there is a divide - you have
one bucket of proprietary code and another bucket of
open source code. The open source code and whatever
modifications you make to it must stay under the open
source license.

With strong copy left everything combined incl. your
code comes under the open source license. Combined
means linking or referencing. So you cannot keep your
code proprietary and link with open source under a
strong copy left license.

Within each license there are small variations.

LGPL requires that a problem using a LGPL library is
linked in a way so the library can be updated independently
of the program. Not a problem in Java, but for native code
that means dynamic linking.

GPL only matters if you distribute your code - for internal
use there is no impact.

AGPL matters if you either distribute your code or
expose it to other as a service (SaaS model).

If you use N open source pieces then you obviously need
to comply with each of the N licenses.

Lots of software is under MPL including FireFox,
H2, RabbitMQ and LibreOffice. MPL is perfectly legal.

The problem with MPL 1.x is that it per FSF is
incompatible with GPL - you cannot mix MPL 1.x software
and GPL software due to conflicting license requirements.
That was "fixed" in MPL 2.0, so it can be mixed with GPL.

Arne

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