5 ms·

Be aware of the licensing though. It was MIT but as of March 9 the license file mentions having to purchase a license if used commercial. Seems contradictory wi

by Rafert 10y ago

Be aware of the licensing though. It was MIT but as of March 9 the license file mentions having to purchase a license if used commercial. Seems contradictory with "to deal in the Software without restriction" part of the MIT license text.

afshinmeh 10y ago
btw, that's fine to use intro.js < v2.0.0 without purchasing commercial license for commercial projects (apps, plugins, themes, etc.)
- ldjb 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you're aware, but the terms of the MIT License apply to commercial as well as non-commercial use. That means it would be fine to use intro.js commercially without a commercial licence.
  - levemi 10y ago
    There's some confusion here about dual licensing projects. Maybe an internet lawyer can comment. The most successful project that I know of that uses dual license is qt which offers a GPL license for open source and a $500+ per month license without restrictions for commercial. Some people say you can just link dynamically and include instructions for how to relink yourself, but if that's true why would anyone provide qt any money, especially at $500per month or whatever rates they charge.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      In this instance though Intro.js is covered under MIT not GPL so the Qt restrictions don't appply.
    - Rafert 10y ago
      Qt uses the LGPL, not GPL: http://www.qt.io/FAQ/ http://www.qt.io/FAQ/ - you're right about the linking stuff. But that means opening stuff in ways that is probably undesired, e.g. embedded devices. In the case of this MIT-licensed work, IANAL but there seems to be no way to require users to buy the commercial license because the MIT license already allows this usage.
rloc 10y ago
Right, I didn't notice at first. http://introjs.com/#commercial http://introjs.com/#commercial Looks like if you use it as part of a commercial product, you have to pay the license.
- nathancahill 10y ago
  Which is only fair IMO, open source developers have to eat too!
  - afshinmeh 10y ago
    ah thanks God! :-)
- Rafert 10y ago
  Reading the texts again it seems it's more like they heavily encourage that license when used commercially (fair enough) and not saying it's mandatory (which contradicts the MIT license). Looks like I'm not the only one who is confused: https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/573 https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/573
ldjb 10y ago
If you're referring to the sentence [1]: "If you want to use Intro.js for a commercial application, theme or plugin the commercial license is the appropriate license." ...It's not saying you have to purchase a licence if you want to use the software commercially, but that the author recommends purchasing the commercial licence, which they are perfectly within their rights to do. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from using the software under the terms of the MIT License, but in that case you will have to abide by the terms of the licence and include the copyright and permission notices when re-distributing (the commercial licence may or may not have these requirements -- I haven't seen it). According to the Intro.js website, the top two tiers of the commercial plan includes support and code review [2], which aren't included with the MIT License. Depending on the situation, one licence may be favourable than the other. It's not too dissimilar to MySQL being available under a free licence as well as a proprietary licence -- it provides a choice. At least, that's how things are as far as I can tell. [1] https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/blob/master/license.md https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/blob/master/license.md [2] http://introjs.com/#commercial http://introjs.com/#commercial
- xPaw 10y ago
  Here the author claims you must purchase the commercial license: https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/464#issuecomment-194775516 https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/464#issuecomment...

by Rafert 10y ago

afshinmeh 10y ago

btw, that's fine to use intro.js < v2.0.0 without purchasing commercial license for commercial projects (apps, plugins, themes, etc.)

ldjb 10y ago
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the terms of the MIT License apply to commercial as well as non-commercial use. That means it would be fine to use intro.js commercially without a commercial licence.
- levemi 10y ago
  There's some confusion here about dual licensing projects. Maybe an internet lawyer can comment. The most successful project that I know of that uses dual license is qt which offers a GPL license for open source and a $500+ per month license without restrictions for commercial. Some people say you can just link dynamically and include instructions for how to relink yourself, but if that's true why would anyone provide qt any money, especially at $500per month or whatever rates they charge.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    In this instance though Intro.js is covered under MIT not GPL so the Qt restrictions don't appply.
  - Rafert 10y ago
    Qt uses the LGPL, not GPL: http://www.qt.io/FAQ/ http://www.qt.io/FAQ/ - you're right about the linking stuff. But that means opening stuff in ways that is probably undesired, e.g. embedded devices. In the case of this MIT-licensed work, IANAL but there seems to be no way to require users to buy the commercial license because the MIT license already allows this usage.

rloc 10y ago

Right, I didn't notice at first. http://introjs.com/#commercial http://introjs.com/#commercial Looks like if you use it as part of a commercial product, you have to pay the license.

nathancahill 10y ago
Which is only fair IMO, open source developers have to eat too!
- afshinmeh 10y ago
  ah thanks God! :-)
Rafert 10y ago
Reading the texts again it seems it's more like they heavily encourage that license when used commercially (fair enough) and not saying it's mandatory (which contradicts the MIT license). Looks like I'm not the only one who is confused: https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/573 https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/573

ldjb 10y ago

If you're referring to the sentence [1]: "If you want to use Intro.js for a commercial application, theme or plugin the commercial license is the appropriate license." ...It's not saying you have to purchase a licence if you want to use the software commercially, but that the author recommends purchasing the commercial licence, which they are perfectly within their rights to do. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from using the software under the terms of the MIT License, but in that case you will have to abide by the terms of the licence and include the copyright and permission notices when re-distributing (the commercial licence may or may not have these requirements -- I haven't seen it). According to the Intro.js website, the top two tiers of the commercial plan includes support and code review [2], which aren't included with the MIT License. Depending on the situation, one licence may be favourable than the other. It's not too dissimilar to MySQL being available under a free licence as well as a proprietary licence -- it provides a choice. At least, that's how things are as far as I can tell. [1] https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/blob/master/license.md https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/blob/master/license.md [2] http://introjs.com/#commercial http://introjs.com/#commercial

xPaw 10y ago
Here the author claims you must purchase the commercial license: https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/464#issuecomment-194775516 https://github.com/usablica/intro.js/issues/464#issuecomment...