4 Replies Latest reply on Mar 22, 2016 6:06 PM by schamblee

    Open Source License


      Hi All,


      I want to release a FileMaker file I created under the MIT license. Even though I can release the code in my app as open source, I know that FileMaker itself is proprietary technology. Do I need to include any special verbiage in the open source license that accounts for FileMaker's ownership of FileMaker Pro?


      Any help is appreciated,



        • 1. Re: Open Source License

          I would say you should include it. Possibly look to the disclosure that FM provides in a Runtime Solution as an example of the direction to go with the verbiage.

          • 2. Re: Open Source License

            It doesn't sound like he's releasing a runtime. Though we don't know that for sure.

            If it's just a FileMaker file; well, I am not a lawyer; but I don't see why that would be necessary. Anymore than releasing a novel in MSWord format.

            • 3. Re: Open Source License

              I know it is not a runtime. It was an example.


              I do not think it is needed but it would not hurt.

              • 4. Re: Open Source License

                I don't think it is necessary to include anything about Filemaker.   I have seen Open source license agreement that state Filemaker is a registered trademark of Filemaker Inc., then I have seen license agreements without it. 


                Tim Dietrich has a few open source databases include with license agreement. timdietrich (Tim Dietrich) · GitHub   He has used license agreements with and without filemaker name.  FMEasySignature, I believe mention FM in the license agreement but FMEasySync did not. 


                If you sell FM with the free copy of your database then it might be wise to mention FMI in the license agreement, such as it is a separate product and is a registered trademark of Filemaker.


                For legal advise you should seek a lawyer.