Thanks. But the answer is still not clear. Let me ask it one more time
1. nopcommerce is an open-source product 2. We (nopcommerce ) purchase the KendoUI license (“UI for ASP.NET MVC”). Note that it’s “royalty-free” 3. We include and this product (“UI for ASP.NET MVC”) in nopcommerce. We include only minified java-script files and compiled DLL files 4. We re-distribute nopcommerce (it’s the open-source project)
Is this scenario allowed? Please answer “yes” or “no”.
Hi Andrei,
Is it correct to say that nopcommerce includes the .dll files when in reality it includes a bunch of .cs files wrapping the KendoUI stuff. I am asking because it seems that Telerik are mainly concerned about the .dll files.
Is it correct to say that nopcommerce includes the .dll files when in reality it includes a bunch of .cs files wrapping the KendoUI stuff. I am asking because it seems that Telerik are mainly concerned about the .dll files.
I think - yes. In the previous versions (when we used "Telerik MVC Extensions") we did not have any custom .cs files wrapping Telerik MVC wrappers. We had Telerik DLLs and just used them without any additional coding. Now we've been going to use the same approach for "Kendo UI Professional" or "KendoUI. UI for ASP.NET MVC" products
So you intend to use the wrappers (.dll files) but you are not using them yet in 3.3?
The main goal is getting access to the latest version of the grid widget. It's available in both "Kendo UI Professional" or "KendoUI. UI for ASP.NET MVC" products. But of course, "KendoUI. UI for ASP.NET MVC" is better because it also includes MVC wrappers
The main goal is getting access to the latest version of the grid widget. It's available in both "Kendo UI Professional" or "KendoUI. UI for ASP.NET MVC" products. But of course, "KendoUI. UI for ASP.NET MVC" is better because it also includes MVC wrappers
To quote our EULA for Telerik UI for ASP.NET MVC, which the prospect can access right here:
"2.1 Redistribution under Commercial License. If You have purchased a Commercial License, You may distribute the Programs in minified form as embedded in Your Integrated Products to Your end-users only pursuant to an end-user license that meets the requirements of this Section. You are not permitted to distribute the Software pursuant to this Section: as a standalone product or as a part of any product other than Your Integrated Product. Your end-user license agreement must: prohibit distribution of the Software by Your Authorized End Users; limit the liability of Your licensors or suppliers to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law; and prohibit any attempt to disassemble, decompile or “unlock”, decode or otherwise reverse translate or engineer, or attempt in any manner to reconstruct or discover any source code or underlying algorithms of the Software. Provided Your Authorized End-Users are in compliance with their license agreements with You, any sublicenses to use the Software granted by You to Your Authorized End-Users will survive any termination of this Agreement or the License set forth herein between You and Telerik. You are not allowed to, and are expressly prohibited from granting Your Authorized End-Users any right to further sublicense the Software.”
As the bolded sentence above mentions customers are not allowed to sub-license our software to their developers, which is in essence what we feel you are proposing with your open source project. While yes, under standard license agreements the license is royalty free, there is a difference between royalty free and whether or not they are allowed to place our license in your application. As it stands right now, open-source by nature allows your end-users to further develop (aka sublicense) our software, which we do not allow. This means that you will not be allowed, under our standard EULA, to include the Telerik UI for ASP.NET MVC components in your project.
Additionally, these kind of redistributions are also tied to the license that the product is currently licensed under. Looking at the nopCommerce website I see that this product is licensed under GPLv3. By definition, GPLv3 is a viral license. This means that any project that contains a GPLv3 license must also be licensed under GPLv3 – including any 3rd party solutions that are included. Under GPLv3 a company must present any and all source code to a client upon request. This would allow any of your users to legally have the right to request the full source code of Telerik UI for ASP.NET MVC even if the minified versions were the only pieces that were included.
To summarize: according to our standard EULA this scenario is not allowed and they cannot integrate Telerik UI for ASP.NET MVC in the nopCommerce product.
Well, could it be that KendoUI is not an option at all.
The Grid is the most important but I can see that the HTML Editor is also only available in the professional edition.
Other controls like the tree view and the uploader are not included either. And we use these.
So unless the nopCommerce uses an UI framework which can be also leveraged by the developers, all the products which are being produced for nopCommerce would become quite eclectic. This does not seem like a good way forward for the eco-sytem.
But then moving to a different framework, I don't even want to think about it.
My knowledge of software development and licensing is very limited, but thought I would jump in with an idea for discussion to allow for the continued use of Kendo.
1. What about changing NopCommerce license and move away from open source?
or
2. Two versions of NopCommerce. Paid version to continue using Kendo, and a stripped down version?
Like I said, my knowledge is very limited, but as a business owner using NopCommerce I wouldn't be opposed to paying to ensure my website contained the most cutting edge technologies.
Just my two cents, Shawn
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
