PDA

View Full Version : Please Explain These Licenses...




ArtOfWarfare
May 25, 2013, 12:10 PM
I often avoid using prewritten code from anyone besides Apple if it includes any licenses, just because I get horribly confused when I read them, no matter how simple they seem.

For example, a framework I'm using has this in the header:

// Copyright 2010 <Framework Author>
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.

// <Framework Name> is a Mac OS X Framework written by <Framework Author> in Objective-C 2.0 and released under the MIT Open Source License.

It starts off by saying it's covered by Apache License 2.0 and then the final line says it's covered by the MIT Open Source License... which one is it?

Or is it both?

What must I do to comply with the licenses?

I'm using this framework in an Xcode plugin which I intend to allow users to install for free, but some features of the plugin will require payment. Is that permissible under the licenses?

Do I need to share some amount of my own code? Which portions, specifically, if any?

Is there anything that I need to include in the plugin that's visible to the end users?



xArtx
Jun 1, 2013, 11:10 PM
I often avoid using prewritten code from anyone besides Apple if it includes any licenses, just because I get horribly confused when I read them, no matter how simple they seem.

For example, a framework I'm using has this in the header:

// Copyright 2010 <Framework Author>
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.

// <Framework Name> is a Mac OS X Framework written by <Framework Author> in Objective-C 2.0 and released under the MIT Open Source License.

It starts off by saying it's covered by Apache License 2.0 and then the final line says it's covered by the MIT Open Source License... which one is it?

Or is it both?

What must I do to comply with the licenses?

I'm using this framework in an Xcode plugin which I intend to allow users to install for free, but some features of the plugin will require payment. Is that permissible under the licenses?

Do I need to share some amount of my own code? Which portions, specifically, if any?

Is there anything that I need to include in the plugin that's visible to the end users?

To comply with MIT lisence you need to make the standard blurb visible
in app documentation:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

And be clear that the blurb pertains to the code you're using.

Other than that, the terms of either lisence does not forbid distribution,
and both of them are pretty open, so who cares?

interesting...

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License


At a glance, I didn't see anything in either lisence that forbids distribution,
even in a commercial project.

It is only polite to attribute work to the authors which is usually done in
documentation anyway.
I don't see anywhere that either lisence would present any hassle.