Hi all
I d like to distribute a guacamole client android to connect to remote desktop. I read that it is under CC license. Does it means that i can distribute it in an android app (with commercial ads) for free?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Let me open by saying that I find what you propose abhorrent. Guacamole is intended to as free as possible, usable by commercial and non-commercial companies and individuals alike, and we want people to make money using guac, but ad-driven freeware makes my skin crawl.
That said, yes you can do this legally. To clarify, it is MIT license, not CC license - it is the documentation that is under a CC license.
Please do not call your redistribution "Guacamole" or use this word anywhere in its name or advertising. I do not want our software or company to be associated with ad-driven freeware, nor do I relish the idea of a special client for what is designed to require a browser only.
This runs against our "clientless" ideals, and against my personal beliefs of what it means for something to be "free".
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
We reached out to you directly via email roughly a week ago, but have received no response. I am posting that message here in our continuing effort to address issues with your website regarding license compliance.
It has come to our attention that you have copied large portions of our documentation and are hosting them on your site without proper attribution:
As discussed in this thread, it is the software that is under the MIT license, the documentation is not. The documentation is under a Creative Commons (CC) license - specifically the CC license which requires attribution. From the manual itself:
"This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. You may copy, transform, and redistribute this work for any purpose so long as attribution is given. Please see the exact terms of the license for details."
From the license linked above, to be able to copy the documentation as you have done, you must:
"... give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Please correct this immediately by properly attributing the source from which your documentation has been copied (the manual for the Guacamole project), linking to the CC license which applies to the original documentation, and indicating what changes were made (in this case, replacing "Guacamole" with "Sophie").
The only other legal alternatives are to remove the copied and altered documentation entirely, or to author your own without using the CC-licensed documentation at all.
For what it's worth, even if the documentation were under the MIT license (again, it is not, it is under a CC license), you current use would still be a license violation as you are missing the copyright portion of the notice required by that license:
"... The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. ..."
Given the above, I am concerned that you may be similarly violating the MIT license for the software portion of your Sophie application. I do not have the ability to check this at the moment, but I strongly suggest checking yourself. If have indeed removed the copyright and permission notices, you must restore them to comply with the MIT license:
If you have questions on this, let us know, but please correct the above and comply with all applicable licenses immediately. Both the CC and MIT licenses are quite permissive and straightforward, and complying with them should not be an issue.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi all
I d like to distribute a guacamole client android to connect to remote desktop. I read that it is under CC license. Does it means that i can distribute it in an android app (with commercial ads) for free?
Let me open by saying that I find what you propose abhorrent. Guacamole is intended to as free as possible, usable by commercial and non-commercial companies and individuals alike, and we want people to make money using guac, but ad-driven freeware makes my skin crawl.
That said, yes you can do this legally. To clarify, it is MIT license, not CC license - it is the documentation that is under a CC license.
Please do not call your redistribution "Guacamole" or use this word anywhere in its name or advertising. I do not want our software or company to be associated with ad-driven freeware, nor do I relish the idea of a special client for what is designed to require a browser only.
This runs against our "clientless" ideals, and against my personal beliefs of what it means for something to be "free".
+1 for Michael
Very well said!
Giovanni di Lembo:
We reached out to you directly via email roughly a week ago, but have received no response. I am posting that message here in our continuing effort to address issues with your website regarding license compliance.
It has come to our attention that you have copied large portions of our documentation and are hosting them on your site without proper attribution:
http://www.cpdmc.it/sophieremoteindex.html
You are welcome to create such derivative works of our documentation, this is why we used a Creative Commons license, but to do so without proper attribution is a violation of the copyright license under which the documentation is provided:
As discussed in this thread, it is the software that is under the MIT license, the documentation is not. The documentation is under a Creative Commons (CC) license - specifically the CC license which requires attribution. From the manual itself:
"This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. You may copy, transform, and redistribute this work for any purpose so long as attribution is given. Please see the exact terms of the license for details."
From the license linked above, to be able to copy the documentation as you have done, you must:
"... give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Please correct this immediately by properly attributing the source from which your documentation has been copied (the manual for the Guacamole project), linking to the CC license which applies to the original documentation, and indicating what changes were made (in this case, replacing "Guacamole" with "Sophie").
The only other legal alternatives are to remove the copied and altered documentation entirely, or to author your own without using the CC-licensed documentation at all.
For what it's worth, even if the documentation were under the MIT license (again, it is not, it is under a CC license), you current use would still be a license violation as you are missing the copyright portion of the notice required by that license:
"... The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. ..."
Given the above, I am concerned that you may be similarly violating the MIT license for the software portion of your Sophie application. I do not have the ability to check this at the moment, but I strongly suggest checking yourself. If have indeed removed the copyright and permission notices, you must restore them to comply with the MIT license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
If you have questions on this, let us know, but please correct the above and comply with all applicable licenses immediately. Both the CC and MIT licenses are quite permissive and straightforward, and complying with them should not be an issue.