License question

Topics: Questions
Nov 30, 2010 at 10:58 PM
Edited Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Hi project people.

Congratulations for the project. I find it very interesting or otherwise I wouldn't be posting this message. My question is all around the license issue. I'm coordinating a projects hosted in codeplex that also uses GPL 2 because, just because it's an inheritance from the original developers. In the said project case, the license doesn't really matter because it's a code generator. No matter the license of the generator, the code you generate is your code.

On your case things are completely different. I don't eat or pay the house mortgage with my code generator project revenues. But I need to sell some programs to some clients. They come to me and say: "look my good man, there is this stuff we need you to do. How much will we have to pay for you to do it?" I tell them my price, etc, you know the procedure. When I say "I" I mean the company I work for. A GPL code base doesn't allow me to do it. So I can't use it.

GPL was all about an idyllic idea (John Lennon's Imagine lyrics springs to my mind) but you can't make a profession of using it. GPL is good only to do other GPL. But that's a serious limitation if you aim to see the widest use for your product. Why don't you change to a license more like LGPL that allows me (and other people like me) to use your source in my own closed source projects? I don't mind people using my code generator to make money. Do you mind people using your library to make their living?

Thanks for your attention

Tiago Freitas Leal


Dec 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Tiago makes a good point, one that is an issue for me as well.

The Catel project looks very interesting, although I am just starting to look into what it does (reading the articles over at the Code Project). I have several projects that I will be placing into open source but the licensing issues are holding me back. Partly because it's complex with open source code, and partly because the licensing is so damn dull compared to creating something new! It's a critical aspect though, and how a project is licensed from the ground up is important.

We have to consider our dependencies and how our work will be used. I had already considered people in Tiago's situation for my own licensing. I want people to use my open source in any way they want; even if it is closed source because they do need to make money somehow (as do I). But if I base my software on a project like Catel, the core of the software also inherits the licensing of Catel.

I would really like to hear Catel's developers opinions on this before I make a decision so crucial to my project.

That said, I still think Catel is very interesting so thanks very much for all your effort with the open sourcing and the articles.

Dec 5, 2010 at 1:22 PM

You are right, we will change the license.

Dec 5, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The software is now licensed as Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL).

Dec 5, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Edited Dec 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Wow, thanks very much, Geert.

The licensing issues are complex, I wish they were simpler. Balancing our needs from those of end users, and of intermediate open source developers, and of closed source developers while having to speak lawyerese is no small task.

Frankly, I wish the licenses themselves were structured in an object oriented manner, and then we could inherit whatever bits we desire within each project, and also help track our licensing dependencies (and our responsibilities).

Thanks again, I will be taking a much closer look at your project now and how I might use it in mine.

Dec 6, 2010 at 6:32 AM

I know what you are talking about, that's why we want the license to be non-restricting as possible. The most important thing for us is that people are not going to resell Catel as "their" software, since we want it to be freely available to everyone.

Dec 7, 2010 at 11:50 PM
GeertvanHorrik wrote:

The software is now licensed as Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL).

 Thanks Geert.

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Hey guys, stumbled across this post (and the framework) when looking for a weak event listener in Silverlight.

I sell a .NET component written in WPF, Silverlight and soon Win8. I need a weakevent listener implementation that works across these platforms (so far I have created a WPF only implementation).

I wanted to include your framework (well, single file actually for WeakEventListener) but there is a copyright header in each file. I realise the license is MS-Pl. I distribute source code to licensees of my component.

So, the question is, how can I be license compliant and use WeakReference in the above?

Many thanks,

Sep 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM

You have a problem including the files with the copyright header?

Sep 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Edited Sep 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Not at all - just wondering, can I include source with copyright header intact in my own app and then sell a component which includes said source (distributed both as source and as compiled) and remain license compliant? What else, if anything do I need to do? 

Oh licensing, confusing confusing 

Edit: Really impressed with Catel's features. How come I didnt hear of this before? Cross platform with IoC, messaging, all those horrible classes you create each time you start a project. 

Sep 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

We choose this license type to allow everyone to use it as is. You can customize the code any way you want:

(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.

(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

The only limitations for you that I think are relevant for you (which doesn't mean the rest isn't valid though):

(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.

(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.