Using LLBLGen in an Open Source Project
Joined: 04-Feb-2004
As a licensee you are free to distribute the runtime libs 
What's the nature of the application?
Joined: 04-Feb-2004
Devildog74 wrote:
It is an ASP.NET Web Application similar in nature to Match.com except it is for golfers. Basically, it will allow golfers in the US find and contact other golfers in their area.
It is really more of a sample application that demonstrates how to use ASP.NET, WCSF, WCF, WF, AJAX, and other new bleeding edge technologies, patterns, and practices.
Sounds awesome! Can't wait to see it. (I don't golf, but an application which sports all those new techs with llblgen pro sounds great )
I am not sure if I want it to be open source or not, but I was considering putting it into codeplex so that my buddies who are interested in helping could help with the project and codeplex requires on open source license.
If it shows llblgen pro in some form we will definitely link to it
Joined: 29-Jul-2005
Joined: 29-Jul-2005
PilotBob wrote:
Otis wrote:
PilotBob wrote:
Devildog74 wrote:
It is an ASP.NET Web Application similar in nature to Match.com except it is for golfers. Basically, it will allow golfers in the US find and contact other golfers in their area.
It is really more of a sample application that demonstrates how to use ASP.NET, WCSF, WCF, WF, AJAX, and other new bleeding edge technologies, patterns, and practices.
I am not sure if I want it to be open source or not, but I was considering putting it into codeplex so that my buddies who are interested in helping could help with the project and codeplex requires on open source license.
Most open source licenses do not allow you to call or rely on closed source runtimes, even if you can freely distribute them. Because, you may be allowed to distribute them, but other people aren't. (Not sure if that is the case with LLBLGen runtimes.)
I've weeded through a lot of these OSS licenses (copy-left (GPL etc.) and copy-right ones (BSD/MIT)), though I don't recall such a clause (but I might have overlooked it though). Admitted, it's could be a bit of a problem if the closed dll's are not freely distributable, however the runtimes are royalty free so you can for example write a closed source app as well which is free and freely distributed.
I always interpert the fact the most OSS license say that you grant the user unlimited, royalty free permissions to distribute the "work" in either source or binary form. I assume converting your runtimes into source form would violate the license.
Sure, but distributing an open source project doesn't mean everything in the project is open sourced . i.e.: the project itself is OSS, but it needs 2 dlls which are included as well. Of course, people can then say "That's not fully OSS", and they're right, there are some closed dlls included. However that's more a thing for the true FOSS followers than the more pragmatic developers IMHO.
Also 'the work' is the sourcecode of the project, not the dll's it depends on: because otherwise it would mean every C# OSS project requires you to run it on mono or rotor because the .NET dlls it relies on have to be distributed as well as oss 
Also, you (LLBLGEN) give rights to customers to distribute your runtimes. But, do you give people we distribute your runtimes to permission to distribute them?
Yes, that's why they're royalty free. There's no other way: Company A creates a software product using LLBLGen Pro for company B. B can't program its way out of a wet paper bag but are great sales people and simply contracted A to create the product for them. B sells the product, effectively distributing the product A made. If we only grand A a distro license, what A makes is then never redistributable by anyone unless they have a license, including resellers. That's of course not going to work.
I also thought having a "work" with two seperate license automatically made them incompatible and therefor illegal... since software must be contained under a single license. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
2 separate licenses aren't always incompatible. For example, if you create a GPL-ed project with llblgen pro, and you distribute the runtime libs with it, you can, because the project builds ontop of the runtime libs, similar to it builds on top of .NET. The only thing which is required to work is that the dlls distributed with the source are distributable in all cases where the sourcecode is distributed. As the dlls are royalty free, that's possible.
We could of course say "No, if you're not a licensee you can't redistribute the dlls, you've to separately download them from our website", though that would make life for company B pretty tough as they then have to ask their customers to download the dlls from our website.