After looking at the licenses for sshtools I'm kind of confused. The license in the redistributable of sshtools says that it is a dual license, Apache and LGPL, the applet says that it is GPL. I want to include the terminal emulator in a commercial project, could someone clarify if that would be allright?
The terminal emulator is GPL software and cannot be included in a commercial product. If you are after a compatible terminal emulator in Java see here:
Thanks for the answer. My poblem is that my application is based on SWT, so some changes to the code will be necessary, a proprietary solution won't allow me to do that.
From what I understand - one can include GPL code in commercial software. The GPL places no restriction on making money from GPL software; the only thing one cannot do is make it proprietary. The code has to remain open source. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html for details.
Nice SSH impl, BTW.
Just to clear things up in this thread, GPL code CANNOT be used with commercial/proprietary licensed software due to the viral nature of the license. If you are to use GPL software in an alternatively licensed product then the entire product must become GPL licensed.
LGPL (Library GPL) which J2SSH is licensed under CAN be used with a commercial app since this license is not viral. This license was designed specifically for application libraries, hence the name.
Thanks for the reply.
I think we are on the same page. I am fully aware that a product (whether provided free or for a fee) using GPL software must be licensed with the GPL. What I trying to say, is that one can still sell this GPL'd software - and you are correct - the entire product then has to be released under the terms of the GPL.
"If you are to use GPL software in an alternatively licensed product then the entire product must become GPL licensed. " -> I think this is only true if the license are INcompatible. For instance, I could use some SSHTerm code with MIT licensed code; I'd then have to distribute the source with both licenses. In this case, the SSHTerm would remain under the GPL, and the MIT code, would remain under the MIT license.
As you probably figured out, I am interested in combining the SSHTerm with some other OSS libraries. :) I have some ideas on how to improve the usability/user experience of the SSHTerm. I'm probably not going to sell the thing (I'll leave that to 3SP :) ), just give it back my modifications to the OSS world as a tool.
The only problem is that must of the times is not up to the developer to decide the license model ;). And this is the only SSH term that DOES work (that I could find)
Hi, I'm new to J2SSH and I have downloaed the source code, the license accompanying the source code if terminal is Apache style J2SSH Software License which allows you to include it in any commercial product without having to disclose your source code. So I am confused now, could anybody please clear things out for me (for example vt100.java).
Um... wtf... what happened to the license with 0.2.8? Looks like its now GPL? No longer dual licensed ASL/LGPL? What's up?
Um, or is now GPL?
As of version 0.2.8 the license of the j2ssh code was changed to GPL. This was done by the original authors.
Versions 0.2.7 will therefore be the latest version which was double-licensed.
That sucks... looks like I'm going to be forking v0.2.7...
I agree with the last comment. I am looking for SFTP to include in an opensource project (openJean). Despite the fact that this would only be a small part, the terms of the GPL make my entire project a "derivative work" and force me to distribute it under the GPL. It actually uses the Mozilla Public License, which we chose as the most suitable. I really dislike being unable to have a free choice and having someone else's choice forced on me. You cannot get much more anti-freedom than that!
please, let's not start a GPL vs. [SOME OTHER LICENSE] debate here.
There is only one thing to add. Nobody forces you to use this software. You are free to decide.
I've been using the j2ssh code under the original license for a while. With the greatest respect and thanks to the original authors, it would be good if the codebase with the original license code could be taken forward in some way. I'm happy to help anyone do this.
Of course if those wishing to develop it now want to use the GPL then that is fair enough and I'll just continue with the code I have. It's good to see the project alive again anyway :-)
I'm developing an app to a telecomunications company and i didnt work to this company, im just doing a project wich my company was payd for. This is like sell ?
Because this company has no pretend to sell, but im selling my services to they ..
What you guys tell me ?
It's not true that GPL code cannot be included within a proprietary product - it happens all the time. For a discussion of this issue you can see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially . Directly from the horses mouth, It states:
_You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear._
The sshtools library is a perfect example of GPL code that can, depending on the nature of the proprietary product, be included without making the entire product GPL. For instance, if I develop an ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tool whose primary function is to transfer data from one place to another for a range of platforms using a range of protocols and I would like to include an adapter to provide SSH capabilities, I can include the sshtools library "along side" the proprietary product.