Search Results

Search found 1038 results on 42 pages for 'licensing'.

Page 10/42 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?

  - by Yannbane

  To quote the license itself: Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I am not exactly sure what the bold part implies. Lets say that I'm creating some library, and I license it under the MIT license. Someone decides to fork that library and to create a closed-source, commercial version. According to the license, he should be free to do that. However, what does he additionally need to do under those terms? Credit me as the creator? I guess the "above copyright notice" refers to the "Copyright (C) [..." part, but, wouldn't that list me as the author of his code (although I technically typed out the code)? And wouldn't including the "permission notice" in what is now his library practically license it under the same conditions that I licensed my own library in? Or, am I interpreting this incorrectly? Does that refer to my obligations to include the copyright and the permission notice?

  Read the article

• What am I allowed to do programmatically with pictures that have a Creative Commons "don't modify" license

  - by nist

  I'm working on a project that uses some icons that are under a Creative Commons license (ND) that forbids modification of the picture. What can I do with this icons as a programmer? Can I modify the looks of the image in the program as long as I don't change anything in the file that contains the icon? Have I modified the image if I put a colored transparent layer over it so the color of the icon changes?

  Read the article

• Submitting software to a competition, it becomes their property?

  - by myrkos

  So I'm about to submit a game to a competition, but as I looked through the rules a chunk grabbed my attention: All Entries become the sole and exclusive property of Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned. Sponsor shall own all right, title and interest in and to each Entry, including without limitation all results and proceeds thereof and all elements or constituent parts of Entry (including without limitation the Mobile App, the Design Documents, the Video Trailer, the Playable and all illustrations, logos, mechanicals, renderings, characters, graphics, designs, layouts or other material therein) and all copyrights and renewals and extensions of copyrights therein and thereto. Without limitation of the foregoing, each Eligible Entrant shall and hereby does absolutely and irrevocably assign and transfer all of his or her right, title and interest in his or her Entry to Sponsor, and Sponsor shall have the right and may authorize others to use, copy, sublicense, transmit, modify, manipulate, publish, delete, reproduce, perform, distribute, display and otherwise exploit the Entry (and to create and exploit derivative works thereof) in any manner, including without limitation to embody the Entry, in whole or in part, in apps and other works of any kind or nature created, developed, published or distributed by Sponsor and to and register as a trademark in any country in Sponsor’s name any component of the Entry, without such Eligible Entrant reserving any rights or claims with respect thereto. Sponsor shall have the exclusive right, in perpetuity, throughout the Territory to change, adapt, modify, use, combine with other material and otherwise exploit the Entry in all media now known or hereafter devised and in any manner, in its sole and absolute discretion, without the need for any payment or credit to Entrant. So the game will become the sponsor's property; however, they don't ask for source code. So will I still own the rights to the source code, whatever that means? And if it doesn't win said competition, will I be able to publish it myself without their trademarks? I am very new to software legality stuff, so I would appreciate any clarification. Since there's a possibility I won't even own the source, is it possible to make the game core engine open source software with a not-very-restrictive license and include that in the project, so I at least still own the game engine? Or does it not work that way?

  Read the article

• Author's work and copyright. in UI design

  - by c-smile

  Typical situation in UI design: you do design of some UI and, say, came up with some bright new idea like "ribbon" or "kinetic scroll past end". What would be the strategy about such thing? Register patent, don't like it, but anyway would like to ask: how long it takes to do all this stuff and how much it will cost in average? If to forget about patents, will the idea have something like "prior art" status or some such if someone will try to patent this in future? All this about project / product published by solo developer.

  Read the article

• Selling an open source project: some issues

  - by Sander

  I am the creator / main developer of a small sized open source (PHP) project (GPL3). Currently there is a development team of 3 people (me included). This team has been quite active for some time, but since almost 2 years not much has happened. I myself have decided I want to stop working on the project, but I can't just leave the project because I care about it and I know if I abandon it, it will just be a matter of time before the project completely dies. At this moment, there are still some users and the project is only slightly out-of-date. So I'm thinking about selling the whole project. Of course I'd need to get consent of the other developers, but for now I'm assuming that's not a big problem. So at this moment I have 2 questions: 1) If the project would be sold to a commercial party, would it be possible for them to convert the project to closed source? I would prefer to sell the project to a company/organization that would continue the development under an open source license. 2) Does anyone have any tips to find interested parties? I don't know if I just want to put up a "For Sale" sign on the website of the project. Maybe someone has experience with a comparable situation. Ok guys, thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Incorporating GPL Code in my Open Source Project

  - by rutherford

  I have downloaded a currently inactive GPL project with a view to updating it and releasing the completed codebase as open source. I'm not really a fan of GPL though and would rather licence my project under BSD. What are my options? Is it just a case of keeping any existing non-touched code under the GPL and any updated stuff can be BSD (messy)? The source will essentially be the same codebase i.e. there is no logical separation between the two and they certainly can't be split into anything resembling different libraries. Are my only realistic options to either GPL the whole thing or seek the original author's permission to release everthing under BSD?

  Read the article

• MPL with Commercial Use Restrictions (And Other Questions)

  - by PythEch

  So basicly I want to use MPL 2.0 for my open source software but I also want to forbid commercial use. I'm not a legal expert, that's why I'm asking. Should I use dual-license (MPL + Modified BSD License)? Or what does sublicensing mean? If I wanted to license my project, I would include a notice to the header. What should I do if want to dual-license or sublicense? Also, is it OK to use nicknames as copyright owners? I am not able to distribute additional files (e.g LICENSE.txt, README.md etc) with the software simply because it is just a JS script. By open-source I mean not obfuscated JS code. So in this case, am I forced to use GPL to make redistribution of obfuscated work illegal? Thanks for reading, any help is appreciated, answering all of the questions is not essential.

  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

• Software Licencing [closed]

  - by Craig

  A colleague of mine wanted a means to do something, so it was suggested that I write some software to do this. The software has turned into more than the original specification and is now something rather complex, however it is not fully functional still. My colleague has not paid me anything so far and I am unwilling to continue writing the software until some faith has been reciprocated in my direction, as I have put a lot of effort into writing the software. I am also unwilling to finish the software as I do not want to give away a huge chunk of my time and effort away as free, neither do I want to be under compensated for my efforts. Some concerns I have. If I finish the software, what if the client doesn't pay me anything or pays too little, or what if I write the software to a usable level, but not complete and the client pays me a too little. I have lost my motivation to finish the software, as more and more specifications have been added to the software and I have developed a substantially complex piece of software and been effectively paid nothing. To finish the software, I need motivation, money would do this, however the client doesn't want to pay for something that isn't complete, yet keeps adding more requirements. I seem to be in a catch 22 with this, as I have developed some software on faith and have had no faith reciprocated in my direction. I'm really not sure how to get some payment from the client or on how to develop a licencing model so that I get some money from the client and development resumes.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Public License Question

  - by ryanzec

  Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

  Read the article

• What does "GPL with classpath exception" mean in practice?

  - by Thilo

  Oracle seems to license all their Java-related open source code under the GPL with a classpath exception. From what I understand, this seems to allow to combine these libraries with your own code into products that do not have to be covered by the GPL. How does this work? What are examples of how I can and cannot use these classes? Why was this new license used as opposed to the LGPL, which seems to allow for pretty much the same things, but is better established and understood? What are the differences to the LGPL?

  Read the article

• My new anti-patent BSD-based license: necessary and effective? [closed]

  - by paperjam

  I am writing multimedia software in a domain that is rife with software patents. I want to open source my software but only for the benefit of those who don't play the patent game, that is enthusiasts, small companies, research projects, etc. The idea is, if my code would infringe a software patent somewhere and a company pays to license that patent, they then lose the right to use and distribute my software. Now I detest license proliferation as much as anyone but I can't find an existing OSI approved license that does this. The GPL comes close, but it only restricts distribution, not use. I want to stop someone using my software should they obtain a patent license to do so. Does another license do this job? Is the wording below unambiguous? - I don't want a legal opinion, just whether it would be interpreted as I intend. Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [ three standard new-BSD conditions not shown here] * No patents are licensed from any third party in respect of redistribution or use of this software or its derivatives unless the patent license is arranged to permit free use and distribution by all. THIS SOFTWARE IS... [standard BSD disclaimer not shown here]

  Read the article

• Can I require a large donation ($499) in order for a company to receive an extended version of my open source project? [closed]

  - by Damian

  I want to make my project open source but some of its more advanced features are targeted to companies so I would like to require a donation before I send the source code to the donating company. It will be something like that: "If you want to use the extended features of XXXXXXX, please make a donation of $499 and you will receive the source code and the jar with the extended features. You will also receive personalized support by email." Is it legal and acceptable to do something like that? Can the companies donate an amount like that to an open source project? I mean, is it easy for them in terms of their accounting, tax, etc. to donate $499 dollars to an open source project. I know it is not a matter whether they will have money or not but more of a paying procedure matter.

  Read the article

• I created a program based on an LGPL project, and I'm not allowed to publish the source code

  - by Dave

  I thought LGPL was a permissive license, just like MIT, BSD or Apache. But today I read, that only linking to LGPL (libraries etc) is allowed from closed-source code - other than that, it's copyleft - so I have to publish code that is based on an LGPL program. I created a program for my employer that is based on an LGPL program, but has considerable modifications to it. Of course, I am not allowed to put that modified source code out there. At the same time, I have to, if I distribute it (right?). So I wonder whether there is a workaround to this, so I can keep this closed-source (I wish I could publish the source) - any suggestions? My idea: can I put most functions of the original LGPL app into an external library, write the core executable from scratch, but refer back to the library for all functions that I haven't modified? Currently, everything is in a .jar file (it's Java/Swing). if you think my idea is legally/technically feasible - how much effort would it be to seperate what I wrote and what the original is? I'm not the most java savvy.

  Read the article

• Using components with different permissive licenses in a commercial app. How to display copyright correctly?

  - by Ivaylo Slavov

  I am writing a commercial application that will make use of some open libraries licensed under different licenses. For example one library will be licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, another will use the LGPL license. Both licenses allow usage in commercial applications, but differ in the way the attributions of licensed work is given. It is my first commercial application that uses 3rd party libraries and I want to do the right thing so that the 3rd party licenses are satisfied. I am not only asking what I should do, but also what I must not do.

  Read the article

• What are some general guidelines for setting up an iOS project I will want to personally publish but sell in the future?

  - by RLH

  I have an idea for a personal iOS project that I would like to write and release to the iOS store. I'm the type of developer who enjoys developing and publishing. I want to write quality software and take care of my customers. Assuming that I wrote an application that had reasonable success, there is a fair chance that I would want to sell the ownership rights of the app to another party and I'd use the proceeds to develop my next personal project which, in turn, I'd probably want to sell in the future. With that said, what are some general guidelines for creating, making and publishing an iOS project that I will eventually want to transfer to another company/developer? I know this is a bit of a broad question, but I request that the given advice be a general list of tips, suggestions and pitfalls to avoid. If any particular bullet point on your list needs more explanation, I'll either search for the answer or post a new question specific to that requirement. Thank you! Note Regarding this Question I am posting this question on Programmers.SO because I think that this is an issue of software architecting, seeking advice for setting a new application project and publishing a project to the Apple iOS store-- all within the requirements for questions on this site.

  Read the article

• how to contribute the same source code to two separate open-source projects?

  - by Jason S

  Let's say there are two similar open source projects A and B, both licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0. I would like to contribute an improvement to both projects (because I don't know which one is administered better, and I would like to see my improvement show up in both). Is there a way I can contribute this improvement to both projects in a simple way? (One obvious approach is to start an open source project C licensed under Apache 2.0, but that's a headache for various reasons; I don't want to maintain a project myself)

  Read the article

• Understanding the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)

  - by J.r. Hounddog

  I'm looking at using a few open source products in a commercial software application I'm working on. One of them is licensed under MIT, which I understand as allowing commercial software linking. However, the other open source product is licensed under MS-PL but I don't understand if that license is fully compatible with commercial software. So the question is, can I use MS-PL licensed OSS in a commercial/proprietary/for-sale application? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Can I distribute a software with the following permission notice

  - by Parham

  I've recently written a piece of software (without any other contributors) for a company which I part own. I was wondering if I could distribute it with the following permission notice, which is a modified version of the MIT License. Are there any obvious risks if I do distribute with this licence and does it give me the right to reuse the code in other projects? Permission is hereby granted, to any person within CompanyName (the "Company") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, excluding any third party libraries (the "Software"), to deal with the Software, with limitations restricted to use, copy, modify and merge, the Software may not be published, distributed, sublicensed and/or sold without the explicit permission from AuthorName (the "Author"). This notice doesn't apply to sections of the Software where copyright is held by any persons other than the Author. The Author remains the owner of the Software and may deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

  Read the article

• How to monetize and protect a engine's and its framework's copyrights and patents?

  - by Arthur Wulf White

  I created a game engine that handles: Rendering levels with 2d textured curved surfaces Collisions with curved surfaces Animationn paths on and navigation in 2d-sapce I have also made a framework for: Procedural organic level generation with round surfaces Level editing Light weight sprite design The engine and framework are written in AS3 and I am in the process of translating the code into HaXe to better support other platforms. I am also interested in adding Animated curved platforms More advanced level editing features Currently, I have a part time job and any time I spend on this engine is either taken out of my limited free time (I'm a student working to support myself through school) or out my time working at my job. I really believe this engine can make life much easier for people designing Tower Defence games, Shooters and and Platformers while also possibly improving their results. It could also support RTS, RPGs and racing games very well. It continains original algorithms that could be used for procedural generation of organic round and smooth levels. The algorithms I used are new and are not available in any other level editor I've seen. In order to constantly improve the Engine and have it tested thoroughly I think the best route is releasing it to the public. What are the best ways to benefit myself and others with my new framework? I want to have some lisence, allowing me to share the framework and still benefit from it. Any advice would be appreciated. This issue has been on my mind a lot this year. I am hoping to find a solution that will bring me some relief. I am thinking of designing three sample games, releasing them and starting a kickstarter, any advice and thoughts on the matter would be valuable. My goal is like Markus von Broady suggested, to get people involved in developing the engine and let people use it for games for either a symbolic fee or for free and charge for support. That or use some form of croud sourcing. Do I need to hire a lawyer to get some sort of legal document to protect my work?

  Read the article

• How does using a LGPL gem affect my MIT licensed application?

  - by corsen

  I am developing an open source ruby application under the MIT license. I am using this license because I don't want to place any restrictions on the users of the application. Also I can actually read and understand this license. I recently started using another ruby gem in my project (require "somegem"). This ruby gem is under the LGPL license. Do I have to change anything about my project because I am using this other ruby gem that is licensed with LGPL? My project does not contain the source code for the other gem and it is not shipped with my project. It is simply listed as a dependency so that ruby gems will install it and my project will call into it from my code. Additionally, it would be helpful to know if there are any licenses I need to "watch out for" because using them would affect the license of my project. There are some other post about this topic but phrased in different ways. Since I find this license stuff tricky I am hoping to get a answer directed at my situation. Thank you, Corsen

  Read the article

• Making money from a custom built interpreter?

  - by annoying_squid

  I have been making considerable progress lately on building an interpreter. I am building it from NASM assembly code (for the core engine) and C (cl.exe the Microsoft compiler for the parser). I really don't have a lot of time but I have a lot of good ideas on how to build this so it appeals to a certain niche market. I'd love to finish this but I need to face reality here ... unless I can make some good monetary return on my investment, there is not a lot of time for me to invest. So I ask the following questions to anyone out there, especially those who have experience in monetizing their programs: 1) How easy is it for a programmer to make good money from one design? (I know this is vague but it will be interesting to hear from those who have experience or know of others' experiences). 2) What are the biggest obstacles to making money from a programming design? 3) For the parser, I am using the Microsoft compiler (no IDE) I got from visual express, so will this be an issue? Will I have to pay royalties or a license fee? 4) As far as I know NASM is a 2-clause BSD licensed application. So this should allow me to use NASM for commericial development unless I am missing something? It's good to know these things before launching into the meat and potatoes of the project.

  Read the article

• If I release a program under GPL, do I have to continue to do so?

  - by Kos

  Consider this scenario: I am developing a program FooSuite that uses a GPL-licenced library QuuxTools I release the program FooSuite 1.0 under GPL Later on I discover that, for some reason, I need to licence the program to someone on different terms. Hence: I remove the dependency on GPL via QuuxTools, by either... rewriting the program not to use this library any longer obtaining a different licence for QuuxTools (if it's dual-licenced; see PyQt) I release FooSuite 1.1 under a non-GPL licence. However, FooSuite 1.1 is still a derivative work from FooSuite 1.0. I understand that it's not legal for a stranger to do what I did, but am I myself - as the owner of FooSuite - free from this restriction?

  Read the article

• Picking the right license

  - by nightcracker

  Hey, I have some trouble with picking the right license for my works. I have a few requirements: Not copyleft like the GNU (L)GPL and allows for redistribution under other licenses Allows other people to redistribute your (modified) work but prevents that other people freely make money off my work (they need to ask/buy a commercial license if they want to) Compatible with the GNU (L)GPL Not responsible for any damage caused by my work Now, I wrote my own little license based on the BSD and CC Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licenses, but I am not sure if it will hold in court. Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved. Redistribution of this work, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All redistributions must attribute <copyright holder> as the original author or licensor of this work (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). 2. All redistributions must be for non-commercial purposes and free of charge unless specific written permission by <copyright holder> is given. This work is provided by <copyright holder> "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed. <copyright holder> is not liable for any damage arising in any way out of the use of this work. Now, you could help me by either: Point me to an existing license which is satisfies my requirements Confirm that my license has no major flaws and most likely would hold in court Thanks!

  Read the article

• Do you tend to write your own name or your company name in your code?

  - by Connell Watkins

  I've been working on various projects at home and at work, and over the years I've developed two main APIs that I use in almost all AJAX based websites. I've compiled both of these into DLLs and called the namespaces Connell.Database and Connell.Json. My boss recently saw these namespaces in a software documentation for a project for the company and said I shouldn't be using my own name in the code. (But it's my code!) One thing to bear in mind is that we're not a software company. We're an IT support company, and I'm the only full-time software developer here, so there's not really any procedures on how we should write software in the company. Another thing to bear in mind is that I do intend on one day releasing these DLLs as open-source projects. How do other developers group their namespaces within their company? Does anyone use the same class libraries in personal and in work projects? Also does this work the other way round? If I write a class library entirely at work, who owns that code? If I've seen the library through from start to finish, designed it and programmed it. Can I use that for another project at home? Thanks, Update I've spoken to my boss about this issue and he agrees that they're my objects and he's fine for me to open-source them. Before this conversation I started changing the objects anyway, which was actually quite productive and the code now suits this specific project more-so than it did previously. But thank you to everyone involved for a very interesting debate. I hope all this text isn't wasted and someone learns from it. I certainly did. Cheers,

  Read the article

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