Timeline for Can I release my plugin scripts as open source if they rely on a proprietary API?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://gis.stackexchange.com/ with https://gis.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Aug 8, 2015 at 8:00 | comment | added | Free Radical | This answer seems to be either wrong or irrelevant (I am not able to figure out which, as the question itself is not clear). | |
| S Jul 17, 2015 at 8:45 | history | suggested | overactor | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Improved grammar |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 5:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2015 at 8:45 | |||||
| Jul 16, 2015 at 20:41 | comment | added | curiousdannii | I think we need a general canonical question about linking libraries. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:48 | history | edited | Mnementh | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 269 characters in body |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:46 | comment | added | Mnementh | @curiousdannii: And for which the copyright-owner can make restrictions that limit the possibilities for you programs relying on this. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:39 | comment | added | curiousdannii | I've been saying "service" which would apply to a linked library too. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:37 | comment | added | Mnementh | You always talk about servers and web, that is only one way an API can work. But besides that I'm pretty sure that however the API is built, it is always possible for the copyright-owner to make restrictions towards the programs using that API. So, modern APIs are often designed with open source in mind and work as you describe. But that is no general truth. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:27 | comment | added | curiousdannii | Some specific companies may have weird requirements, but I'd think in general that it is as I say. An API could be not just proprietary but commercial, users having to authenticate with the program/server. That should have no impact on how the client is licensed. Not all free/open software has to be usable without authentication. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:21 | comment | added | Mnementh | @curiousdannii: API-owners around the world have a different opinion about that. Also I'm not sure OP is talking about a web-API, so I'm not sure the question I linked apply, as it might be a different API to the ESRI-products. And some time ago it was pretty usual, that users of a framework have to agree to licensing fees for the product they created on base of that framework. In the face of open source this has become less common, but it is still a possibility. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | curiousdannii | I disagree that the API owners have any say over the licensing of any product that uses it, for the simple fact that the client could be changed to use a different web service. The web service is not open, but that doesn't mean the plugins can't be. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 11:51 | comment | added | Mnementh | @curiousdannii: In the answer at the first link it is said, that the program using the API can only be used for a set of use-cases, that is incompatible with open source. And you're right that the linking is difficult, I think I already said it in an answer to another question, but I think it leads to far here. Fact is, as long as we don't know for sure if the linking is holding in court, we have to assume it might and err on the safe side. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 10:33 | comment | added | curiousdannii | Furthermore, what counts as a "link", and therefore what the GPL applies to, is contested. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 10:32 | comment | added | curiousdannii | I don't think your first link applies to this situation. Lots of web services have limitations, such as rate limits for example. Those limitations do not have any impact on whether some program which accesses the web service can be free/open or not. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 9:16 | history | edited | Mnementh | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 543 characters in body |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 9:08 | history | answered | Mnementh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |