Zeo Developer Terms of Use

[Chad Joan]

That makes sense.  I was/is planning to release only my own code under GPL,
but I hadn't thought about pointing to the Zeo license yet.  So good point.


I'm also not using the web API, so no need to worry about that.

I'm still wondering about those Modification/Termination clauses and how
they might work for this kind of thing.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Ben Tilly <btilly at gmail.com> wrote:

> You do not have sufficient ownership over THEIR code to release it
> under anything resembling a copyleft license.  Or to release the whole
> (your code plus theirs) under any open source license at all.
> Furthermore if you intend to use their web API, then users must
> acquire their own Web API Keys.
>
> You do have the right to release your own code under a liberal
> license.  *However* I'd highly recommend that your code come with a
> disclaimer pointing users to their license.  Because people are bound
> by Zeo's license, and you wouldn't want to encourage accidental
> violations of their license.
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Chad Joan <chadjoan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What other licenses might work for this?
> >
> > I might be convinced to use something more liberal like Boost, MIT, or
> > libpng.  I would much rather prefer to release end-user code in something
> > that keeps the code in the open though.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Ben Tilly <btilly at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It does not look like their license is in any way, shape, or form
> >> compatible with the GPL.  Therefore I suspect that trying to release a
> >> GPLed application based on their product is a Very Bad Idea.
> >>
> >> Sorry...
> >>
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110127/68fb91fc/attachment.html>