Can I use the source code of the amazon echo for my own commercial use.

[JK Tech]

hey can I use the source code form the amazon echo for my own computers and than sell those computers on ebay without any repurcusions. 

[minibois]

Not sure about the license they have, but most open source programs have a license that let you use their code for commercial purposes, as long as you publish any changes to the code (if you did make any).

For example, you can buy old PC's, slap Ubuntu on it and sell them on eBay, but you can't make changes to the Ubuntu source code, sell PC's with that changed code and not  publish the code.

 

Anyways, read up on the license Amazon Echo has (if it's open source either way)

[vorticalbox]

1 hour ago, Minibois said:

Not sure about the license they have, but most open source programs have a license that let you use their code for commercial purposes, as long as you publish any changes to the code (if you did make any).

For example, you can buy old PC's, slap Ubuntu on it and sell them on eBay, but you can't make changes to the Ubuntu source code, sell PC's with that changed code and not  publish the code.

 

Anyways, read up on the license Amazon Echo has (if it's open source either way)

this is the tricky part now the kernel would need to be open source but if you made a custom she'll that wouldn't need to be published as it's your own work. I've seen a few android manufactures try and pull the "android is open source but we don't have to release anything as we wrote it"

 

I believe they have 192 days from device release to post source code though I could be wrong.

[Fourthdwarf]

What do you mean specifically by source code?

 

If you have source code, you should have a license with it that should tell you whether it can be used commercially, and any limitations on that.

 

If you have tools for use with echo (i.e API), that should also have a license with it.

 

If you do not have a license, then you cannot use the source code, and are illegally in possession of that source code.

[Pinguinsan]

On 12/30/2016 at 6:04 PM, Fourthdwarf said:

What do you mean specifically by source code?

 

If you have source code, you should have a license with it that should tell you whether it can be used commercially, and any limitations on that.

 

If you have tools for use with echo (i.e API), that should also have a license with it.

 

If you do not have a license, then you cannot use the source code, and are illegally in possession of that source code.

Not having a license does NOT mean it is illegal to have the code. See here.

[Fourthdwarf]

23 hours ago, Pinguinsan said:

Not having a license does NOT mean it is illegal to have the code. See here.

You're right.

It is illegal to do *anything* with it though, including reading, using or compiling it.

[SilicateWielder]

On 12/30/2016 at 2:28 PM, JK Tech said:

hey can I use the source code form the amazon echo for my own computers and than sell those computers on ebay without any repurcusions. 

Well that depends on the licensing of the sourcecode, it's best that you email Amazon directly and ask them.

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 12/30/2016 at 0:28 PM, JK Tech said:

hey can I use the source code form the amazon echo for my own computers and than sell those computers on ebay without any repurcusions. 

It completely depends on the licensing of the source code. If it's an open source one (like BSD, MIT, or GPL), you'll probably be able to get away with what you are proposing provided you abide by what's stated in the license file.

 

Some are more relaxed about what you do with the code than others. For example, MIT licenses require that you only keep the license file and the copyright information. If it's GPL though, any changes you make must be GPL licensed as well, and you must provide a way for someone to obtain said source code.

 

But all in all, read the license thoroughly. If you miss even one thing, Amazon can sue the pants off you.

[Yamoto42]

@M.Yurizaki There's also the whole viral aspect and whether linking constitutes a derivative work...good ole Richard M. Stalin dictating what licences I'm allowed to put on my code.

[Mira Yurizaki]

15 minutes ago, Yamoto42 said:

@M.Yurizaki There's also the whole viral aspect and whether linking constitutes a derivative work...good ole Richard M. Stalin dictating what licences I'm allowed to put on my code.

The funny thing is I had a stint at Qualcomm for a few months. I had to take a training lecture on usage of open source software. They specifically singled out GPL in a "use only if no other option exists" because of how pervasive the license is.

 

Although my favorite licenses was for some DOS game. I want to say it was Paku Paku. Anyway, the author released it to public domain and scoffed at GPL and the like by saying "why bother releasing software as free and open source when you hide it behind pages of legalese?"

[Yamoto42]

@M.Yurizaki I'm personally fond of the 3-Clause BSD License myself.

1,2) Give me credit for my work.

 

3)  I'm not your free advertisement.
 

 

#3 is purely personal (I'm licensing the software, not my name) and the reason I prefer it over the MIT license.  However the I like the bullet list format over the X11 license...You really shouldn't split your list into multiple sections...

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, Yamoto42 said:

@M.Yurizaki I'm personally fond of the 3-Clause BSD License myself.

1,2) Give me credit for my work.

 

3)  I'm not your free advertisement.
 

 

#3 is purely personal (I'm licensing the software, not my name) and the reason I prefer it over the MIT license.  However the I like the bullet list format over the X11 license...You really shouldn't split your list into multiple sections...

I'm more of the "I don't care what you do with my code as long as you give credit where do" person. So MIT is fine by me.

 

Though I only say that because I don't want people using my code and then trying to claim it's theirs to show off or something. Or worse, scrubbing off the serial numbers, claiming its theirs, and then trying to tell me to eff off.

[Yamoto42]

13 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm more of the "I don't care what you do with my code as long as you give credit where do" person. So MIT is fine by me.

 

Though I only say that because I don't want people using my code and then trying to claim it's theirs to show off or something. Or worse, scrubbing off the serial numbers, claiming its theirs, and then trying to tell me to eff off.

My only thing with number 3 is, having visited the internet before, suddenly seeing my name pop up all over the place as a "contributor" to some neo-nazi whatsit or something.

Paranoia?   Perhaps...but I have been on the internet before...


But there's always the WTFPL or Beerware licenses...

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, Yamoto42 said:

My only thing with number 3 is, having visited the internet before, suddenly seeing my name pop up all over the place as a "contributor" to some neo-nazi whatsit or something.

Paranoia?   Perhaps...but I have been on the internet before...


But there's always the WTFPL or Beerware licenses...

I think that's more of an issue with people not understanding that software is a tool and that they may have just used your tool for their schemes. Tools are not good or bad. Just the people using them.

 

I mean, Windows is used by them North Koreans. Does Microsoft secretly support a communist totalitarian regime?

[JK Tech]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:56 AM, M.Yurizaki said:

It completely depends on the licensing of the source code. If it's an open source one (like BSD, MIT, or GPL), you'll probably be able to get away with what you are proposing provided you abide by what's stated in the license file.

 

Some are more relaxed about what you do with the code than others. For example, MIT licenses require that you only keep the license file and the copyright information. If it's GPL though, any changes you make must be GPL licensed as well, and you must provide a way for someone to obtain said source code.

 

But all in all, read the license thoroughly. If you miss even one thing, Amazon can sue the pants off you.

Yeah you are right.

Thanks for helping.

[JK Tech]

On 12/30/2016 at 5:04 PM, Fourthdwarf said:

What do you mean specifically by source code?

 

If you have source code, you should have a license with it that should tell you whether it can be used commercially, and any limitations on that.

 

If you have tools for use with echo (i.e API), that should also have a license with it.

 

If you do not have a license, then you cannot use the source code, and are illegally in possession of that source code.

Even though Amazon lets you download it off of the internet?

[madknight3]

1 hour ago, JK Tech said:

Even though Amazon lets you download it off of the internet?

Just because you have access to the source code doesn't mean you can legally do whatever you want with it. That's why open source software comes with a license that describes what you are allowed/not allowed to do with it.

It's usually pretty easy to find the license information. It's often located in a text file that's included with the source code. Sometimes its included as comments in a code file (usually at the top of the file).

 

There are sites out there like tldr legal and choose a license that help make it easier to understand what you can/can't do based on the license in use. However just note that these aren't a substitute for a lawyer.