03-26-2012 06:53 PM
Another example of ASL2 is our TunnelTilt game demo.
You can go look how we did the LICENSE and the NOTICE files, and how we added the copyright and license information in the header files. Check out https://github.com/blackberry/WebGL-Samples/tree/m
Earlier today we published that TunnelTilt application, built from those same sources, to AppWorld; see:
ASL2 is not viral, i.e. it does not apply to your new files, only to the ones you brought over. A description of ASL2 is at Apache's site:
Apache.org also has more details on the license. I also gave a presentation on Open Source at DevCon America and DevCon Europe
In general it is hard for RIM employees to give you specific advice on your application - we can't act on your behalf, but I hope the links above are useful.
03-26-2012 07:02 PM
11-27-2012 11:44 AM
Does anyone know of any general guidance relating to the use of the GPL v3 with BB App World please?
In addition is there any guidance on how the GPL3 'Disclaimer of Warranty' and 'Limitation of Liability' (Sections 15 and 16) interacts with the Vendor Agreement. It seems the vendor takes on additional liability outside of the GPL3 licence?
11-27-2012 12:44 PM
The use of GPLv3 is problematic for applications delivered via an app store like RIM's (and others). For example, v3 imposes requirements on the tool chain used to create the applications and we do not open source our code signer.
We do not include any GPLv3 components in our GitHub repo. For example, we recently collaborated with the author of http://www.gitorious.org/kqoauth to change the license used in that component to be the standard license used for Qt components (LGPL v2 with an additional exception); we later incorporated Kyle's adaptation to our GitHub repo as https://github.com/blackberry/bb-cascades-oauth.
I have to insert the standard disclaimer that: "I am not a lawyer and I cannot provide legal advice", but I'd not use GPL v3 components.
11-27-2012 05:16 PM
epelegrillopart - thanks for the fast reply - I now understand the issues a bit better.
I have to say I wasn't aware of the issues surrounding GPLv3 and app stores in general (having come from an ecosystem where you can package your own apps and distribute them privately). This is the slightly boring bit that comes after the fun bit! My two areas of interest are:
(i) how to provide the same / similar level of limited liability and disclaimer of warranty as provided by the GPL?;
(ii) what non-permissive, copyleft, licence alternatives are there?
I can see I'm going to have to do some more research.
11-27-2012 05:41 PM
We mostly use permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, ASL2, ZLIB), but a number of components we use, including Qt, are LGPLv2.1 (sometimes with an extra clause as in the case of Qt) and we use some EPL code.
I've not looked carefully at MPL 2.0 or MS-PL or MS-RL, but I think those are probably also OK. MPL2.0 looks pretty clean and FSF considers it compatible with GPL, while FSF considers both MS incompatible with GPL.
Of course, different licenses impose different constraints.
IANAL, but hope this helps some...
12-05-2012 10:36 AM
12-09-2012 08:40 AM - edited 12-09-2012 08:41 AM
@epelegrillopart - Thanks for the reply.
Since I have copyright over the new portion of code (and link to LPGL or more permissive libraries for the rest) I'm going to release the Blackberry version without any ability to view the source and under some other form of licence (executable only, TBD). Versions of my code for other platforms will remain under GPLv3. Not ideal, but seems the best compromise for now.
12-09-2012 11:05 AM
OK; that's the advantage of owning the copyright.
It would be nice for others to see how you ported to BlackBerry. Pping me if you want to work on a proposal that will work for all platforms. Twitter to @pelegri is probably simplest channel... with a unified inbox they all go the same place