proposal OpenG Licenses

[jgcode]

You are probably right, but I still think there should be a OpenG tool that can create a listing of all OpenG modules and their licencing with a default layout. If you want to change the default layout, use an API to build your own.

For most people that would be enough, but the point is that they will at least be able to correctly give credit to OpenG.

Regarding performance, I don't think that is an issue, we have used a tool to scan pretty big projects for specific strings, and that completed in very short time.

/J

I haven't benchmarked it personally, so I cannot comment there, as I am just gathering requirements for this project (if it goes ahead).

I see the use case that the OpenG copyright will be integrated with other copyrights, so I don't see the value in create a single screen etc... just for OpenG.

What do others think?

[Rammer]

Does the licensing apply only to commercially deployed applications? If I run a test program internally to my company do I need all this EULA?

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

Does the licensing apply only to commercially deployed applications? If I run a test program internally to my company do I need all this EULA?

As long as it is for your own use, there is nothing that forces you to do any licensing related stuff (this is about OpenG, or other Open Source, use of commercial software needs of course to obey their licensing requirements even for personal use). But once you distribute your app, commercial or not, you need to comply with the Open Source licensing requests and this means you need to add some credit information for compiled apps or leave the source code intact in the distribution.

Chances that a coworker is going to fuss about this if you let him use the compiled app are rather small, but you are strictly speaking in violation of the OpenG license if you don't add some credit information somewhere in your compiled app. If however you distribute the whole thing in source, that already fulfills the license requirement.

[jgcode]

Can anyone else comment on CC license with respect to LabVIEW?

I was able to answer this question regarding if CC licenses were suitable for LabVIEW code when I was researching for another thread.

From Creative Commons website:

Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. Furthermore, our licenses are not compatible with the GPL, the most frequently used free software license.

Note that the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.

Good to know

[Dave Graybeal]

If however you distribute the whole thing in source, that already fulfills the license requirement.

If I distribute both a compiled application as well as the source code it is derived from does this still force me to include the licensing information?

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

If I distribute both a compiled application as well as the source code it is derived from does this still force me to include the licensing information?

For (L)GPL software (which applies to the DLL portion of the libraries that have them) you do need to mention it both in compiled apps as well as the source code (the second is logical as you can not remove existing copyright notices from the source code).

All versions of the BSD license also have one clause for source and one for binary distribution and both of them apply independent of each other. Since the LabVIEW OpenG part is basically BSD the answer to your question would be therefore a clear yes!

I would consider it enough to mention in the About box the fact that you use the OpenG libraries and then add a license.txt or similar file to the installation where you print the license text. If your app makes use of the OpenG ZIP, LabPython or other library using a DLL you should strictly speaking also add the relevant LGPL license text and point to the Sourceforge OpenG project where one can download the source code of those libraries.

[barney]

Hello there,

 

I'm new to lava.org , and I love it.

I'm working with OpenG since a while in development environment.

 

At the moment I have to compile the code and use an installer. So I have to consider licenses? As I understand I have to do two things. 

• I have to provide the EULA during Install. (Is it difficult with the NI Installer?)
• In the "About" of the exe I have to mention that it uses OpenG. As in http://jkisoft.com/vipm/docs/2010/index.html?turl=copyrightinformation.htm
  

Is it enough?

 

For this purpose I've started to write a tool that reads out all the names from the licence text. I'm encountering 2 problems.

• Some Copyright statements do not us a "," after the Year. 
• Some do not  use a brace around the email adresse.
  

It shows that there is not only a need of a standard but also that it should be used. I could make a list of these vi's and post it here if wanted?

 

Best Regards

Barney