Search Results

Search found 2438 results on 98 pages for 'gpl license'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 10/98 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Sharing code in LGPL and proprietary software

    - by Martin
    Hi I'm working on a piece of software that'll be released as a dll under LGPL. The software interfaces with hardware from a small company that has provided me with the needed libraries and some code to use them correctly (not only headers but its all in a separate file). As far as i know, the same code is used in their proprietary software that they don't intend to open source but they'd be fine releasing the piece of code they've given me. Now here's the question: What license could be used on the code I got from the company? I guess using GPL or LGPL would make them violate GPL when using the same code in their other software. Is MIT a good idea? Is it ok to just include a file with MIT license on it in my otherwise LGPL:ed project? Since I'm not the copyright holder, I'd have to ask the company to apply the license obviously but that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks /Martin

    Read the article

  • License for library developed with commercial program

    - by Overv
    I'm developing a commercial application that largely depends on the functionality of a library that will be developed with it. I'd like to open-source this library, because it offers functionality that is not found elsewhere and can be useful in other applications. However, I will also use it in my own commercial application. I don't want to publish the source of the main application, but it is definitely not a derived work (think of calculator app using GPL licensed library to calculate sine). And if someone else commercially uses the library, I want to require them to publish any changes made. Is the GPL license suitable for this or is LGPL perhaps what I need?

    Read the article

  • Is adding in the header the license type enough to say: "my code is licensed"?

    - by silverfox
    I read on various sites about licenses. I did just put the license type in the header file (in my case a javascript file, open-source): /* * "codeName" "version" * http://officialsite.com/ * * Copyright 2012 "codeName" * Released under the "LICENSE NAME" license * http://officialsite.com/LICENSE NAME */ javascript code ... In the same folder I leave a copy of the license. The listing of the folder looks like this: * codeName.js * LICENSE In the file LICENSE is the full text of the license my code uses. What I cannot find anywhere that says is this is enough to say my code is licensed (the case of open-source). Is something more required?

    Read the article

  • "Viral" license that only blocks legal actions of user and developer against each other

    - by Lukasz Zaroda
    I was thinking a lot about software licensing lately, because I would like to do some coding. I'm not an expert in all those licenses, so I came up with my own idea, and before I will put in on paper, I would like to make sure that I didn't reinvent a wheel, so maybe I would be able to use something that exists. Main idea behind my license is to guarantee freedom of use the software, but not "freedom to" (positive) (e.g. freedom to having source code), but "freedom from" (negative) (strictly from legal actions against you). It would be "viral" copyleft license. You would be able to without fear do everything you want with the software (and binaries e.g. reverse engineering), as long as You will include information about author and/or authors, and all derivative works will be distributed with the same license. I'm not interested in anything that would restrict a freedom of company to do something like "tivoization". I'm just trying to accomplish something that would block any legal actions of user and developer, targeted against each other, with the exception of basic attribution. Does exist something like that?

    Read the article

  • What is the "default" software license?

    - by Tesserex
    If I release some code and binaries, but I don't include any license at all with it, what are the legal terms that apply by default (in the US, where I am). I know that I automatically have copyright without doing anything, but what restrictions are there on it? If I upload my code to github and announce it as a free download / contribute at will, then are people allowed to modify and close source my work? I haven't said that they cannot, as a GPL would, but I don't feel that it would by default be acceptable to steal my work either. So what can and cannot people do with code that is freely available, but has absolutely no licensing terms attached? By the way, I know that it would be a good idea for me to pick a license and apply it to my code soon, but I'm still curious about this. Edit Thanks! So it looks like the consensus is that it starts out very restricted, and then my actions imply any further rights. If I just put software on my website with no security, it would be an infringement to download it. If I post a link to that download on a forum, then that would implicitly give permission to use it for free, but not distribute it or its derivatives (but you can modify it for your own use). If I put it on GitHub, then it is conveyed as FOSS. Again, this is probably not codified exactly in law but may be enough to be defensible in court. It's still a good idea to post a complete license to be safe.

    Read the article

  • Do you have to pay for GNU GPL software that is "for sale"?

    - by DisgruntledGoat
    I've seen some software (a Joomla component, to be exact) for sale on a web site. The web site says it is licensed under the GNU GPL2. However it also says you need to pay for every site you use the software on (with bulk discounts). I know it's perfectly acceptable to sell software under the GPL, however the license implies that the source code must be distributed at no cost. So is this a legitimate use of the GPL, or is it violating the license? Is it legal to download the software for free (say, from Bittorrent) and use it as I wish?

    Read the article

  • Choice of open source license for some components, closed source for others

    - by Peter Serwylo
    G'day, I am working on a set of multiplayer games, where different games play against each other (e.g. you play a Tetris clone, I play an Asteroids clone, but we are both competing against each other). All the games would be based on the same underlying framework written specifically for this project. I am struggling to comprehend how I would license this so that: The underlying framework is open source, so other people can create new games based on it. Some games built on the framework are open source Other games are closed source The goal is to have two bundles on something like the Android market: One free and open source package which has a collection of games Another "premium" (although I dislike that word) paid package which has a different collection of games. Usually I am fond of permissive licenses such as MIT/BSD, however I would prefer something more in the vein of the GPL for this. This is because for software such as the snes-9x SNES emulator, which is a great piece of software, there is a ton of poor quality versions being sold, whereas it would be preferable if there was just one authoritative version which was always kept up to date, and distributed for free. If the underlying framework was GPL'd, would I be able to build closed source games on top of it? Thanks for your input.

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL'ed Web Application Framework/CMS?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

    Read the article

  • Most popular Open-Source License on github?

    - by John R
    This is a two part question: 1) What is the most popular Open-Source License used by developers on github? 2) Assuming people follow the rules - will this license (the most popular on github) assure that my name is always associated with the project - regardless of how it forks or is picked up elsewhere. The reason I ask is I have not yet used github nor released an open source project. My main incentive for releasing a particular project is to develop a name for myself and improve my resume. I have a lot of reading to do, but I suspect that knowing the most popular licensing schemes will reduce my reading and my learning curve.

    Read the article

  • Pursuing violators of software license/copyright

    - by Dmitry Brant
    I've recently discovered a seller on eBay who is selling CDs with my (trialware) software on it. The seller is clearly trying to pass the software off as his own; he's copied all the verbiage from my software's website, except its actual name. This seller also sells a whole bunch of other CDs with free software for which he's misrepresenting authorship. For example, this listing contains screen shots that are obviously of the free program InfraRecorder. However, the name InfraRecorder or its authors aren't mentioned anywhere. Before I splurge on official legal assistance, does the community have any recommendations or past experiences with these kinds of matters? What's the best way to proceed, and at the very least, have the eBay listings taken down? Is it possible to reclaim the earnings from the sales of these CDs (not just for me, but for the other authors of the free software that this person is selling)? I realize that GPL'd software doesn't have any restrictions on "selling" the software, but this person has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the software's authorship, which is surely a violation of the license. (My software is not GPL; it's a custom license, and it does not permit redistribution of any kind without permission)

    Read the article

  • Using source code with no license

    - by nathansizemore
    I've recently come across a publicly viewable project on Github that has no license associated with it. In this repo, there is a file with the logic and most of the code needed to work as a piece of a project I am working on. Not verbatim, but about 60% of it I'd like to use with various modifications. Once my code base is a little bit more stable, I plan to release what I've done under the WTFPL License. I've emailed the repo owner, and so far have not gotten a reply. I know I have the rights to fork the repo, but if I release a stripped down and modified version of the other project's file with mine, under the WTFPL, am I infringing on copyrights? Per Github's Terms of Service, by submitted a project on Github and making it viewable to the public, you are allowing other users to see and fork your project. Doesn't say anything about modifying, distributing, or using the fork. And at what point of modification to the original does it become owned by me?

    Read the article

  • Questions about software licensing

    - by iwayneo
    I've been having a discussion about licensing and open source software. Basically - the other guy is saying that licensing is easy, if you're going to build a product you can use an (any) open source project and make money by selling that code. My issue is that say I create a website or app with a project that uses a GPL license the restrictions aren't so straight forward - correct me if i'm wrong on each of these scenarios: 1 - i create an iPhone app using GPL code and put that app into the appstore - the code must be freely available to people buying that app. 2 - i create a website that my client hosts - they must have access to the code. 3 - i create a website as SaaS that my client "leases" but does not own - though it is hosted on their infrastructure - they must have access to that code Am i right on each of those assumptions? Are there any other issues i should be aware of under any other licensing terms for other licenses?

    Read the article

  • What is the right license for tutorial source code ?

    - by devdude
    Putting sourcecode from tutorials or books online requires the author to add some kind of disclaimer or license (otherwise people would use it make lots of $$$ or break a power plant IT control system and sue you as author). But what is the right license or disclaimer statement ? Can I use BSD license with ... IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA,... We are talking about tutorials ! Released to teach and share knowledge. Or do I need to follow the (potentially different) licenses of the libraries I use ? Might be insignificant now but I feel we will face a license hunt in "public" sourcecode (aka OSS) in future, similar to companies/lawyers currently crawling the web for pictures with wrong copyright statement or infringing their IP (and suing someone using a picture in a personal blog,etc..).

    Read the article

  • GNU General Public License (v2): can a company use the licensed software for free?

    - by EOL
    When a library is released under the GPL v2, can a company use it internally for free? If they develop software based on it, do they have to release it under the GPL, even if they don't distribute it? Can they make money by using (not distributing) internally developed software that links to the GPL'ed library, without any compensation for the author? I am looking for a software license that only allows non-commercial uses (copy, modify, link to); the resulting derived programs must also be free for non-commercial uses. Is there any software license that does this for non-commercial uses, and prevents any commercial use (including using the software in order to make money)? It looks like the Creative Commons licenses are flexible enough to do something close to that, but I've read against using them for software. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • What does it mean to double license?

    - by Adrian Panasiuk
    What does it mean to double license code? I can't just put both licenses in the source files. That would mean that I mandate users to follow the rules of both of them, but the licenses will probably be contradictory (otherwise there'd be no reason to double license). I guess this is something like in cryptographic chaining, cipher = crypt_2(crypt_1(clear)) (generally) means, that cipher is neither the output of crypt_2 on clear nor the output of crypt_1 on clear. It's the output of the composition. Likewise, in double-licensing, in reality my code has one license, it's just that this new license says please follow all of the rules of license1, or all of the rules of license2, and you are hereby granted the right to redistribute this application under this "double" license, license1 or license2, or any license under which license1 or license2 allow you to redistribute this software, in which case you shall replace the relevant licensing information in this application with that of the new license. (Does this mean that before someone may use the app under license1, he has to perform the operation of redistributing to self? How would he document the fact that he did that operation?) Am I correct. What LICENSE file and what text to put in the source files would I need if I wanted to double license on, for the sake of example, Apachev2 and GPLv3 ?

    Read the article

  • Cellbi Silverlight Controls Giveaway (5 License to give away)

    - by mbcrump
    Cellbi recently updated their new Silverlight Controls to version 4 and to support Visual Studio 2010. I played with a couple of demos on their site and had to take a look. I headed over to their website and downloaded the controls. The first thing that I noticed was all of the special text effects and animations included. I emailed them asking if I could give away their controls in my January 2011 giveaway and they said yes. They also volunteered to give away 5 total license so the changes for you to win would increase.  I am very thankful they were willing to help the Silverlight community with this giveaway. So some quick rules below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Win a FREE developer’s license of Cellbi Silverlight Controls! (5 License to give away) Random winner will be announced on February 1st, 2011! To be entered into the contest do the following things: Subscribe to my feed. Leave a comment below with a valid email account (I WILL NOT share this info with anyone.) Retweet the following : I just entered to win free #Silverlight controls from @mbcrump and @cellbi http://mcrump.me/cscfree ! Don’t change the URL because this will allow me to track the users that Tweet this page. Don’t forget to visit Cellbi because they made this possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before we get started with the Silverlight Controls, here is a couple of links to bookmark: The What's new in this release page is here. You can also check out the live demos here. Don’t worry about the Samples/Help Documentation. That is installed to your local HDD during the installation process. Begin by downloading the trial version and running the program. After everything is installed then you will see the following screen: After it is installed, you may want to take a look at your Toolbox in Visual Studio 2010. After you add the controls from the “Choose Items” in Silverlight and you will see that you now have access to all of these controls. At this point, to use the controls it’s as simple as drag/drop onto your Silverlight container. It will create the proper Namespaces for you. It’s hard to show with a static screenshot just how powerful the controls actually are so I will refer you to the demo page to learn more about them. Since all of these are animations/effects it just doesn’t work with a static screenshot. It is worth noting that the Sfx pack really focuses on the following core effects: I will show you the best route to get started building a new project with them below. The best page to start is the sample browser which you can access by going to SvFx Launcher. In my case, I want to build a new Carousel. I simple navigate to the Carousel that I want to build and hit the “Cs” code at the top. This launches Visual Studio 2010 and now I can copy/paste the XAML into my project. That is all there is to it. Hopefully this post was helpful and don’t forget to leave a comment below in order to win a set of the controls!  Subscribe to my feed

    Read the article

  • SRs @ Oracle: How do I License Thee?

    - by [email protected]
    With the release of the new Sun Ray product last week comes the advent of a different software licensing model. Where Sun had initially taken the approach of '1 desktop device = one license', we later changed things to be '1 concurrent connection to the server software = one license', and while there were ways to tell how many connections there were at a time, it wasn't the easiest thing to do.  And, when should you measure concurrency?  At your busiest time, of course... but when might that be?  9:00 Monday morning this week might yield a different result than 9:00 Monday morning last week.In the acquisition of this desktop virtualization product suite Oracle has changed things to be, in typical Oracle fashion, simpler.  There are now two choices for customers around licensing: Named User licenses and Per Device licenses.Here's how they work, and some examples:The Rules1) A Sun Ray device, and PC running the Desktop Access Client (DAC), are both considered unique devices.OR, 2) Any user running a session on either a Sun Ray or an DAC is still just one user.So, you have a choice of path to go down.Some Examples:Here are 6 use cases I can think of right now that will help you choose the Oracle server software licensing model that is right for your business:Case 1If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 100 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Two cases using the same metrics - different licensing models and therefore different results.Case 2If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 200 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - very different results.Case 3If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 50 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - but again - very different results.Based on the way your business operates you should be able to see which of the two licensing models is most advantageous to you.Got questions?  I'll try to help.(Thanks to Brad Lackey for the clarifications!)

    Read the article

  • Branding/Restricting a Software by License/Serial

    - by Sid
    I have made a POS System for a client of mine using MS Access Server-Client approach. He asked me to brand his software to allow only a certain "number" of users (cashiers) to access the POS System, and must be determined to the license his client will buy. EX: 10 User License = 10 Cashiers ( not necessarily 10 users, it can be 30 users, shifting) = it means 10 PCs will be installed with the client software I made. How and where do I put the logic that will determine if it is licensed or not. What I have done: I have created a serial key generator using Name. Problem is it can be duplicated once you give than name+serial combination, it would still work. I am counting the number of users logged at a time. This could be problematic as I am using MSAccess and not MSSQL. I have scrapped this idea, He also asked me if I could just put serial+mac address combination. That I could do but he will have a hard time implementing it and selling it if he needs the mac address of every computers to be installed with my POS. I am at lost on what can I do. Would like to ask for tips and suggestions. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Add in the header of the license type is enough to say: "my code is licensed"? (Open-source)

    - by silverfox
    I do not know if this is the correct place to ask this stackexchange. Note: If a moderator can move to the correct place (if I am in the inappropriate site SE) I read on various sites about licenses. I did just put the license type in the header file (in my case the javascript file - open-source). /* * "codeName" "version" * http://officialsite.com/ * * Copyright 2012 "codeName" * Released under the "LICENSE NAME" license * http://officialsite.com/LICENSE NAME */ javascript code ... In the same folder I leave a copy of the license. The listing of the folder looks like this: * codeName.js * LICENSE In the file LICENSE would leave my code uses. What nobody says is if it is enough to say my code is licensed (the case of an open-source). Or is something more required? Sorry for the bad English. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can I create a new project based on GNU GPL v2?

    - by Jared Pearson
    I've found a SourceForge project with a solid core that I would like to improve. The project hasn't been updated since 2007 so I assume it is "dead". I sent an e-mail asking to become a contributor to the listed project manager last week but still haven't received a response. The project is licensed under the GNU GPL v2. I would like to contribute to the current project but that doesn't appear to be possible. Can I modify the current source version of the project and release this modified project? I would keep the same license on the modified project.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >