Please Explain These Licenses...

Discussion in 'App Store Business, Legal and Marketing' started by ArtOfWarfare, May 25, 2013.

  1. macrumors 603

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #1
    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:

    Code:
    //  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?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #2
    To comply with MIT lisence you need to make the standard blurb visible
    in app documentation:
    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...
    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.
     

Share This Page