chevron-thin-right chevron-thin-left brand cancel-circle search youtube-icon google-plus-icon linkedin-icon facebook-icon twitter-icon toolbox download check linkedin phone twitter-old google-plus facebook profile-male chat calendar profile-male
Welcome to Typemock Community! Here you can ask and receive answers from other community members. If you liked or disliked an answer or thread: react with an up- or downvote.
0 votes
I just learned of the open source license for TypeMock Isolator, and I would love to start using TypeMock Isolator in the projects I publish on CodePlex, but I'm wondering about the limitations of the license.

From the license page ( ), it says:

The Commercial License does not allow you to incorporate code developed with the Open Source Editions of Typemock software into a proprietary project.

I plan on using TypeMock Isolator only for the unit-test projects. In other words, for project X, I would have a X.Tests project that referenced X, and references Isolator, and then used TypeMock Isolator to make the tests more maintainable.

Would this pose any limitations for anyone using the final assemblies of project X? ie. the one without a reference to TypeMock?

As a very concrete example, I have a project that I just started that I plan on implementing a WebDAV server for .NET in. I have a ton of code in a private project that I will rewrite from scratch because it turned out to be hard to maintain, and I'm going to publish it all on CodePlex under the modified BSD license.

The current solution has these 4 projects:

* WebDAVSharp.Core
* WebDAVSharp.Core.Tests
* WebDAVSharp.Server
* WebDAVSharp.Server.Tests

Only the 2 .Tests projects would have a reference to TypeMock. When I get to the point where I have anything to release, only the non-Test project assemblies would end up in the zip files for download.

Of course, all the code would be available.

Would the clause in the license prevent anyone from using those assemblies (ie. the non-test ones) in a commercial product?

On one hand I would think it wouldn't, otherwise anyone "infecting" their open source project would basically prevent anyone from ever using the outcome of that project in a proprietary product.

On the other hand, I feel when I read it like it actually would prevent people from that.

Who can shed any light on this subject?
asked by lassevk (640 points)

2 Answers

0 votes

You can use the open source licenced Isolator to develop any type of software you're publishing under an open source license (such as BSD). It doesn't matter if later your library will be incorporated into a proprietary project.

In other words, what you're describing is exactly what the open source license if for - you can write unit tests for your library, which you publish under a BSD license. Later, anyone can use your library, depending on the type of license you allow, even in a commercial project.

Hope that answers your question.
answered by igal (5.7k points)
0 votes
Yes it does, this is very good news.

I have two more questions then. I also sent the first one to support email, but perhaps I can get an answer here during the weekend, I'm a bit eager to get started you see :)

The question are:

1. Are there any technical limits to Isolator when licensed with the open source license, that the paid licenses don't have, like number of mocks you can make or similar?

The reason I ask is that I have a personal license. Is there anything I can do with Isolator that a contributor to my project with only the open source license cannot do?

and 2. What files can I/should I/must I distribute with my open source project? I was thinking that if I put the core assembly and the ArrangeActAssert assembly into the repository, the unit tests will compile, but won't run, if you don't have TypeMock installed with a valid license. Can I do this? If I can, are there any other files I should add as well, like a EULA file or whatnot?

Apart from the good news that this is (to me), you really should advertise this better on your webpages. That I had to learn of the open source license through a google link instead of text on your page is a bit shocking in this day and age :)
answered by lassevk (640 points)