[License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the software business

[Ben Tilly]

Nigel's list is biased towards paranoia.  Paranoia is a healthy default
 But it is OK, for example, to ship useful standalone GPL tools to
customers in a zip file that happens to also contain proprietary code of
yours that does not use those tools.

As always, if in doubt you should consult a lawyer and the license.  And
don't rely on opinions from a mailing list.

One final note, I would recommend that it may be worth your while to find a
lawyer with open source experience, and not just familiarity with
intellectual property.  Open source licenses are somewhat unusual, and
there are common misunderstandings around, for instance, how the GPL works
that a general lawyer is likely to spend time working through the first
time.  (Is this a contract?  Does it apply if it is not a contract?)  While
lawyers are generally happy to research things on your dime, this is not
always an efficient use of your money...

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
wrote:

> Cindy advice is best but the quick and dirty answer for you given the two
> things you stated:
>
>    - We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used
>    libraries.
>    - At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider
>    providing the source code using the opens source libraries.
>
> Good:  Apache, BSD, MIT and other permissively licensed open source code.
>
> Maybe Good:  LGPL, MPL and weak copyleft licensed open source code.
>
> Not Good:  GPL and any strong copyleft licensed open source code.
>
> Review your code base and anything that used GPL source code in an
> Android/iOS app or Windows/MacOS/Linux program is an issue.  On your
> internal server if you used any AGPL code it may be an issue.
>
> Your normal lawyer should be able to find you an IP lawyer but you might
> as well start going over your code base.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nigel
>
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org> on behalf
> of Cinly Ooi <cinly.ooi at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "cooi at theiet.org" <cooi at theiet.org>, License Discuss <
> license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM
> To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Using opensource in a company not in the
> software business
>
> You _are_ in the software business.
>
> The correct person to evaluate your case is your lawyer.
>
> As Woolley said, regardless of which the license of the software you
> choose uses, you still have responsibility under open source license, and
> your customers have expectations as provided for by the license.
>
> It is the same whether it is open source license or close source license
>
> Your lawyer will look at each license you need to use and apply it to see
> whether it meets your business objective.
>
> Another good place to start is to see is there any local people who can
> talk you through it for the price of a coffee. However, your lawyer has the
> final say.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Cinly
>
> *****
> “There should not be an over-emphasis on what computers tell you, because
> they only tell you what you tell them to tell you,” -- Joe Sutter, Boeing
> 747 Chief Engineer.
>
> On 28 November 2016 at 10:23, FREJAVILLE Etienne <
> etienne.frejaville at coface.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry for asking a question that has probably been answered in the
>> past, but I couldn't find a clear and precise answer on the subject on your
>> website or any web resource.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are a private company and we wonder how to deal with developments
>> using open source.
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all we are not a software company, and therefore we just provide
>> software applications to our customers, so that they can use our
>> services/buy our products.
>>
>>
>>
>> We develop with code that may use opensource, both:
>>
>>
>>
>> - 1. Pure internal software
>>
>> - 2. Software for our customers provided as Web applications (that
>> obviously interacts with a part of our internal software).
>>
>> - 3. Software for our customers provided as mobile applications
>> (IOS&Android apps) that interacts with a part of our internal software.
>>
>>
>>
>> The usage we make of opensource, is either use the opensource products as
>> standalone products (e.g Maven, Kados..), or use them ‘as is’ as libraries
>> (most java or javascript) (e.g POI, jQuery...).
>>
>> We do not modify or enhance the open source code of the used libraries.
>>
>> At last, our code must be kept as proprietary and we don’t consider
>> providing the source code using the opens source libraries.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have read quite a few pages on the opensource.org website, the FAQ and
>> other external papers, but it seems that the licences discussions and
>> restrictions, concern most of the time the usage of the open source in
>> commercial products, or concern the distribution of open sources
>> modifications.
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, I would like to know if a software provided to our
>> customers in our case, is considered in the open source terminology as a
>> 'customer product'.
>>
>> Second, I would like to understand what 'distribution' stands for. Is
>> distributing a web application or mobile application considered
>> 'distribution' ?
>>
>> We provide some binary code that may contain usages of open source
>> libraries, to some of our subsidiaries. Is it also considered as
>> 'distribution' ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The idea behind these questions is to know if in fact we have to care
>> about using Open source software or not in our situation..
>>
>>
>>
>> If indeed we provide a commercial product and we are considering
>> distributing software that may require the usage of opensource libraries
>> for being able to work, indeed, I guess we are concerned by Open source
>> usage.
>>
>> If it's the case, I will have more precise questions regarding the usage
>> we make of these libraries, to understand what licences we may use and what
>> we may not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>> **********************************************************************
>> Le groupe Coface, un leader mondial de l'assurance-crédit, propose aux
>> entreprises du monde entier des solutions pour les protéger contre le
>> risque de défaillance financière de leurs clients. Ses 4 400 collaborateurs
>> assurent un service de proximité dans 67 pays.
>>
>> The Coface Group, a worldwide leader in credit insurance, offers
>> companies around the globe solutions to protect them against the risk of
>> financial default of their clients. 4 400 staff in 67 countries provide a
>> local service worldwide.
>>
>>
>> Confidentialité/Internet disclaimer
>>
>> Ce message ainsi que les fichiers attachés sont exclusivement adressés
>> aux destinataires désignés et peuvent contenir des informations à caractère
>> confidentiel. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire désigné, merci de prendre
>> contact avec l'expéditeur et de détruire ce message, sans en faire un
>> quelconque usage ni en prendre aucune copie.
>> Les messages électroniques sur Internet peuvent être interceptés,
>> modifiés, altérés, détruits, ou contenir des virus. L'expéditeur ne pourra
>> être tenu responsable des erreurs ou omissions qui résulteraient de la
>> transmission par voie électronique.
>>
>> This message and the attachments are exclusively addressed to their
>> designated addresses. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
>> the sender and delete the message without making any use or copying it.
>> E-Mail transmissions could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed or
>> contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
>> errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result
>> of e-mail transmission.
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161128/459d322d/attachment.html>