Mixing
Do Licenses for Test Libraries Apply to Production Code?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
(I am re-asking this question here, as I was informed that it was off-topic on Stack Overflow)
My interest in this question stems from concern over the lack of a license in a testing framework I came across (make-it-easy). My worry was that the lack of a license in this case would leave my (proprietary) distributed production code vulnerable to legal hassle (though I recognize this is unlikely).
However, this concern led to the following question: do the licenses on open-source testing libraries (e.g. JUnit) even apply to the production code that is tested using them? After all, that code will not be distributed with any dependencies on the testing libraries.
In Googling and searching Stack Exchange I have not found a definitive answer to this. It seems as if everyone is working under the assumption that the licenses do indeed cover that production code, but I would like a definitive answer and an explanation of that answer.
commercial proprietary-code
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
(I am re-asking this question here, as I was informed that it was off-topic on Stack Overflow)
My interest in this question stems from concern over the lack of a license in a testing framework I came across (make-it-easy). My worry was that the lack of a license in this case would leave my (proprietary) distributed production code vulnerable to legal hassle (though I recognize this is unlikely).
However, this concern led to the following question: do the licenses on open-source testing libraries (e.g. JUnit) even apply to the production code that is tested using them? After all, that code will not be distributed with any dependencies on the testing libraries.
In Googling and searching Stack Exchange I have not found a definitive answer to this. It seems as if everyone is working under the assumption that the licenses do indeed cover that production code, but I would like a definitive answer and an explanation of that answer.
commercial proprietary-code
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
1
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
(I am re-asking this question here, as I was informed that it was off-topic on Stack Overflow)
My interest in this question stems from concern over the lack of a license in a testing framework I came across (make-it-easy). My worry was that the lack of a license in this case would leave my (proprietary) distributed production code vulnerable to legal hassle (though I recognize this is unlikely).
However, this concern led to the following question: do the licenses on open-source testing libraries (e.g. JUnit) even apply to the production code that is tested using them? After all, that code will not be distributed with any dependencies on the testing libraries.
In Googling and searching Stack Exchange I have not found a definitive answer to this. It seems as if everyone is working under the assumption that the licenses do indeed cover that production code, but I would like a definitive answer and an explanation of that answer.
commercial proprietary-code
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
(I am re-asking this question here, as I was informed that it was off-topic on Stack Overflow)
My interest in this question stems from concern over the lack of a license in a testing framework I came across (make-it-easy). My worry was that the lack of a license in this case would leave my (proprietary) distributed production code vulnerable to legal hassle (though I recognize this is unlikely).
However, this concern led to the following question: do the licenses on open-source testing libraries (e.g. JUnit) even apply to the production code that is tested using them? After all, that code will not be distributed with any dependencies on the testing libraries.
In Googling and searching Stack Exchange I have not found a definitive answer to this. It seems as if everyone is working under the assumption that the licenses do indeed cover that production code, but I would like a definitive answer and an explanation of that answer.
commercial proprietary-code
commercial proprietary-code
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
asked 5 hours ago
Kinxer
183
183
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Kinxer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
1
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
1
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago
1
1
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
1
1
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
You are right to be worried, but for the wrong reason.
If you are using testing code that has no license, merely using it can be in violation of the author's copyright (since you have to download it and make several copies). While unlikely, you could be sued for this at any point down the line.
Never use code from repos that doesn't include a license.
Only one current license, the SSPL, purports to extend to code tested using SSPL code. Note that the SSPL has not been certified by the OSI (or any other organization) as an open source license, and this is one of the reasons why some argue it shouldn't be.
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
You are right to be worried, but for the wrong reason.
If you are using testing code that has no license, merely using it can be in violation of the author's copyright (since you have to download it and make several copies). While unlikely, you could be sued for this at any point down the line.
Never use code from repos that doesn't include a license.
Only one current license, the SSPL, purports to extend to code tested using SSPL code. Note that the SSPL has not been certified by the OSI (or any other organization) as an open source license, and this is one of the reasons why some argue it shouldn't be.
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
You are right to be worried, but for the wrong reason.
If you are using testing code that has no license, merely using it can be in violation of the author's copyright (since you have to download it and make several copies). While unlikely, you could be sued for this at any point down the line.
Never use code from repos that doesn't include a license.
Only one current license, the SSPL, purports to extend to code tested using SSPL code. Note that the SSPL has not been certified by the OSI (or any other organization) as an open source license, and this is one of the reasons why some argue it shouldn't be.
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
You are right to be worried, but for the wrong reason.
If you are using testing code that has no license, merely using it can be in violation of the author's copyright (since you have to download it and make several copies). While unlikely, you could be sued for this at any point down the line.
Never use code from repos that doesn't include a license.
Only one current license, the SSPL, purports to extend to code tested using SSPL code. Note that the SSPL has not been certified by the OSI (or any other organization) as an open source license, and this is one of the reasons why some argue it shouldn't be.
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
You are right to be worried, but for the wrong reason.
If you are using testing code that has no license, merely using it can be in violation of the author's copyright (since you have to download it and make several copies). While unlikely, you could be sued for this at any point down the line.
Never use code from repos that doesn't include a license.
Only one current license, the SSPL, purports to extend to code tested using SSPL code. Note that the SSPL has not been certified by the OSI (or any other organization) as an open source license, and this is one of the reasons why some argue it shouldn't be.
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
answered 3 hours ago
Josh Berkus
33812
33812
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
Yeah, the "violation of the author's copyright" was what I meant by "legal hassle". I'll have to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the answer.
– Kinxer
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Kinxer is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kinxer is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kinxer is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kinxer is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7529%2fdo-licenses-for-test-libraries-apply-to-production-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Related: Implications of using GPL licenced code only during testing (this might be less specific, though)
– apsillers♦
4 hours ago
@apsillers The accepted answer on that question is very helpful. Do you think that that GPL-specific answer is also more widely generalizable?
– Kinxer
4 hours ago
1
Yes -- really when we ask "do I need to satisfy GPL requirements?" we're really asking "does this use require copyright permission from the author?" which generalizes to many situations. By "this question is less specific" I meant that that question does into much more detail about what their testing environment looks like, relative to their released code. A project that didn't match that question's setup might get a different answer, perhaps.
– apsillers♦
3 hours ago