Search Results

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

Page 11/42 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• 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

• Is there any copyleft (GPL-like) license with both the Affero and Lesser modifications?

  - by Ben Voigt

  Looking for a license that covers public network service, like AGPLv3, but like LGPL isn't infectious. Basically I wrote some useful helper functions I want to allow to be used in any work, including closed-source software, but I want to require improvements to MY CODE to be released back to me and the general public. Can you recommend a suitable license? It should also include some of the other AGPL-permitted restrictions (attribution, indemnity), either in the license text or as permitted variations.

  Read the article

• Unicode license

  - by Eric Grange

  Unicode Terms of use (http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html) state that any software that uses their data files (or a modification of it) should carry the Unicode license references. It seems to me that most Unicode libraries have functions to check if a character is a digit, a letter, a symbol, etc. ans so will contain a modification of the Unicode Data Files (usually in the form of tables). Does that mean the license applies and all applications that use such Unicode libraries should carry the license? I've checked around, and it appears very few Unicode software do carry the license, though arguable most of those that didn't carry the license were from companies that were members of the Unicode consortium (do they get license exemption?). Some (f.i. Mozilla) are only "Liaison Members", and while their software do not carry the license (AFAICT), they do obviously rely on data derived from those data files. Is Mozilla in breach of the license? Should we carry the license in all apps that include any form of advanced Unicode support? (ie. are bound to rely on the Unicode data files) Or is there some form of broad exemption? (since very very few software out there carries the license)

  Read the article

• Alternatives to the GPL

  - by Bane

  I made a game, and I am currently making a game engine. I want them both to be completely free and open source. What license should I choose? I was reading a bit on GPL, but that seems to be more suited for system code and libraries, AFAIK, as it doesn't permit the use of code for proprietorial software - which, in turn, implies that the code can be used in the first place. I can see that, obviously, game engines can be considered libraries, and therefor be used, but what about game code? Is there an alternative to GPL?

  Read the article

• The use of LGPL for Commercial use

  - by Smarty Twiti

  I am trying to make my first app for sale, I would like to ask some questions for those who have already sold their software: Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers? for example, if your customers/ competitors from the market reveal technology/secrets that you used in your solution (as LGPL requires that you make a Dynamic Link (.DLL) for your libs and you clearly tell the use of a Lib/Framework ...). Full story: For my project, I used a framework LGPL/commercial (Dual License) the second one it was too expensive (about 3000 USD) which pushed me to use LGPL.. however I still concerned.. That is why I ask for advise and especially motivations... Please do not hesitate to participate... Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Is there a cheaper non-express non-student, non-msdn version of Visual Studio 2010 that supports plugins in the US than the $710 Professional Edition?

  - by Justin Dearing

  I've never actually purchased a copy of Visual Studio myself. SharpDevelop and Express edition have always been good enough for my personal use, and my employers always furnished me with the IDEs I needed to serve them. However, I'm thinking of actually paying for a copy for my personal laptop. I need this mainly so I can open solutions that contain web projects. So my question is: Is there an edition cheaper than the $710 Pro edition on Amazon that will do what I need: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-C5E-00521-Visual-Studio-Professional/dp/B0038KTO8S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287456230&sr=8-2 ? What I need is defined as: Open up a solution with C#, Web App, VB.NET, and Web Projects. Install addins like resharper, testdriven.net, etc, SCM plugins, etc. Some level of db project support. At least to be able to open a dbproj. I only need that for SCM hooks. SSMS and SQLCMD are good enough for actually editing databases. Ability to install F#, IronPython, IronRuby etc. Now naturally I'm a fairly intelligent resourceful person so I realize I can get Visual Studio in a questionable manner. Thats not what I'm looking to do. I want a legal copy, I don't want a student copy, or an MSDN copy. I want a real copy, I just want to make sure I get the cheapest edition that serves my needs.

  Read the article

• Anti Cloud Open Source License

  - by Steve

  I'm working on a browser based open source monitoring project that I want to be free to the community. What I'm worried about is someone taking the project, renaming it, deploying it in the cloud and start charging people who don't even know my project exists. I know I maybe shouldn't mind, but it just sticks in my throat a bit if someone took a free ride like that and contributed nothing back. Is there any common open source license that can prevent this. I know GPL or AGPL don't.

  Read the article

• Implications of Cisco open-sourcing H.264? [on hold]

  - by Suman

  Cisco has announced that it will license and open-source the H.264 video codec. As a result of this, Firefox will be embedding H.264 playback functionality in future versions of Firefox. What implications, if any, will this have for programmers building software and/or hardware dealing with video (and WebRTC in particular)? (And if programmers.SE isn't the right forum, please feel free to suggest a better option.)

  Read the article

• Options for Opensource license?

  - by foodil

  I am choosing a license for my open source software and I've learned about GPL, EBMS and BSD. GPL seems to be most popular one. The problems are: Would anybody kindly name a few popular opensource licenses? Since I do not see any EBMS BSD license is popular. Are there any chart or table that have list out the advantages/disadvantages of using anyone? Why is the GPL always the license developers choose from, what are its benefits? 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 you change a license once you pick one?

  - by Adam

  I am working on a product that I don't feel is completely ready but I have a set of users that are very interested in using it now as "alpha" testers. I would like to give them the product now for free as "alpha" testers, but I would like to later license the software. Is this possible? Can anyone point me to any links/books/articles/etc? Thanks. EDIT: Due to the lack of my clarity and the reponses to the question I thought I should add this statement. I haven't decided if I am going to close-source or open-source this project yet. The user base that wants to get their hands on it now has kind of surprised me and I was concerned about what my options are as far as being able to give it to them now as open-source and later change to closed-source, or even vice versa. Thanks to everyone who has answered and commented. I appreciate it the insights.

  Read the article

• Is there a precedent for the license on a compiler restricting the kind of development you can use it for?

  - by Jim McKeeth

  It was recently let slip that the new EULA for Delphi XE3 will prohibit Client Server development with the Professional edition without the additional purchase of a Client Server license pack. This is not to say the Professional version will lack the features, but the license will specifically prohibit the developer from using the compiler for a specific class of development, even with 3rd party or home grown solutions. So my question is if there is a precedent of a compiler or similar creative tool prohibiting the class of work you can use it for. Specifically a commercially licensed "professional" tool like Delphi XE3. Also, would such a restriction be legally enforceable? I know there have been educational edition or starter edition tools in the past that have restricted their use for commercial purposes, but those were not sold as "professional" tools. Also I know that a lot of computing software and equipment will have a disclaimer that it is not for use in "life support equipment" or "nuclear power" but that is more of avoiding liability than prohibiting activity. Seems like I recall Microsoft putting a restriction in FrontPage that you couldn't use it to create a web site that reflected poorly on Microsoft, but they pulled that restriction before it could be tested legally.

  Read the article

• GPL/LGPL/MPL non-code content license

  - by user1103142

  I want to use a dictionary (basically a text file, and no code) that is included with an open office spell checking plug-in. The plug-in is under the tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL which I don't understand. is that legal? If it is illegal, what if I wrote a script that uses the said open office plug-in to generate the dictionary (assuming it's technically possible, the script will generate all possible letter permutations, passes it to the plug-in and saves the correct ones) ? I will be using the dictionary in a closed source commercial application. The dictionary is in a language that has very little resources online, and short of making my own dictionary, there aren't any alternatives. Clarification: The script idea I mentioned above, isn't a weird technique, I would generate a document with all possible words and use open office with the plug-in installed to show spelling mistakes and remove them, isn't this the intended use of the plug-in (spell checking)?

  Read the article

• GPL licensed software installed on commercial hardware

  - by Alexander Reshytko

  Do vendors need to provide sources, at the customer's request, for GPL licensed software installed on the hardware they sell? For example, a vendor sells an IPTV box and pre-installs some proprietary software product which is linked with some GPLed library. As a consequence, the software becomes GPLed itself. Does the vendor need to provide the source code for it? The vendor doesn't sell that software, he sells hardware.

  Read the article

• External modules security

  - by Jlouro

  I am developing some external modules for an application. These modules are BPL files and if present in the application folder the application loads them and uses whatever is available inside. How can I prevent the sharing of these modules by my clients? I need them to be authorized to use the modules (module by module). To have some sort of license, registration of the module, what is the best method? Thanks

  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

• Automatic generate code: "derived work"?

  - by Peregring-lk

  For example, I've GPL software. I'm the author of this GPL software. This GPL software has, between its code, Doxygen comments. These Doxygen comments are written to generate a CC-BY-SA html page, in order to upload this generated documentation in my project website under CC-BY-SA license. But, the Doxygen documentation output is a "derivate work"? After all, this documentation is based on my GPL source code. In this case, the documentation must be GPL. But, I want the documentation is CC-BY-SA, because it is documentation. GFDL doesn't help. GPL code can't become GFDL (the opposite yes). If this output is really a derivate work, I think, creates a strange situation, because, if I distribute my work, the recipient users can't legally distribute the generated documentation: while with my work I can do I want, the users don't, thus, they have to distribute any derivated work with the same license I offer them. What is the solution?

  Read the article

• Does NASA license the software that it develops?

  - by Abe

  NASA provides a visualization software called Panoply. There is a Credits and Acknowledgments page that acknowledges and lists the licenses of software dependencies, but provides no information about its own license. I have looked at other software produced by NASA, including the source code for GISS and can not find any information about a licence. The closest information that I can find is in the FAQ for the global climate model EdGCM Global that says the code is in the "public domain" is it standard practice at NASA to release code into the public domain? are there exceptions? Can I assume that Panoply is public domain and can be used without restriction other than than those imposed by licenses of software dependencies? Is the absence of specific permission to reuse the code a concern (this issue was raised in the answer to a separate question) How common is this practice across government agencies?

  Read the article

• Does distributing non-GPLd assets with a GPL application violate the license?

  - by Richard Szalay

  This is somewhat related to my other question, but is actually different. I would like to license a Windows Phone application under the GPL. All other Windows Phone Marketplace issues aside (I'll ask those on the forums), I'd like to include icons that ship with the SDK in my application. While this is common practice (documentation points to the icons' location), I'm not sure if I'd be forcing GPL on the icons (a move expressly forbidden by the Application Provider Agreement). How is this usually handled in GPL or am I simply out of luck?

  Read the article

• Can i use aac in an commercial app for free?

  - by Jason123

  I was wondering if i can use the aac codec in my commercial app for free (through lgpl ffmpeg). It says on the wiki: No licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format.[36] This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format to distribute content than MP3, particularly for streaming content (such as Internet radio). However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs. For this reason free and open source software implementations such as FFmpeg and FAAC may be distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement. (See below under Products that support AAC, Software.) But the xSplit program had to cancel the AAC for free members because they have to pay royalties per person. Is this true (that you have to pay per each person that uses aac)? If you do have to pay, which company do you pay to and how does one apply?

  Read the article

• Open Source License that prevents re-selling

  - by Vaccano

  I have an open source project that is a add-in to TFS (ie it is for developers and those using TFS.) It is currently using the GPL. But it occurs to me that the GPL does not really represent what I am trying to do with my license. I want my code to be free to everyone who wants to use it. And if you modify it and use it then that is great too. You should not have to open source your modifications. But I would like to block someone from building my code and selling it. Or modifying it and selling it. (Anyone that wants to do that should have to negotiate a separate license with me.) Is there an open source license that prevents re-selling, but allows full non-vending use for a person/company that downloads it?

  Read the article

• Can I name a team with the name of their city to avoid trademark issues?

  - by Paul

  I was wondering, if you want to make a NBA game on smartphones, without the license held by EA, the first solution seems to name your teams with a different name, such as "Chicragro Brulls" (this is just for the example), but would it be possible to just call your team with the name of the city, such as "Chicago vs. Dallas" ? I know the first solution was chosen by Pro Evolution Soccer, would you know any other game that don't use a license?

  Read the article

• SUN Java and GPL V2 licence issue for linked applications

  - by user255607

  I have recently noticed that the Sun Java code has been released as GPL V2 code (see Google code repo). Does that mean that all applications written in Java and linked to Sun APIs (beans, and so on) are also in GPL ? If we strictly follow the GPL then this should be the case (Libs should be in LGPL, not GPL if we want to build proprietary software on top of it). Is there another commercial licence which can avoid such an issue ? I cannot believe this is the case. There must be an explanation on this. Regards, Apple92

  Read the article

• Simple website with a GPL V3 Framework

  - by sineverba

  I write web-based software and simple website ("Home", "Who we are", "Contact"). For a simple website I'm using a covered GPL v3 framework. The user surf the website, send an email, take info, etc. I repeat: simple website, not a Joomla or Wordpress. 1) Will the website be covered with the GPL? I don't modify the framework. I'm using his classes in other classes... (OOP). 2) For the point 1, if yes, do I need to add (e.g. in the footer) name of framework and his link? 3) I must permit download of entire website to study code (nothing that a programmer has interest in)? E.g. placing it in Github? 4) If 2 is NO, how you can "understand" that we use that framework? In effect no php lines are exposed to the browser... You cannot understand that when you push "Send email" the site is calling $this->send($email). If you write me an email "Are you using XXX framework"? I can answer NO.

  Read the article

• Which language is productive for high phase business application development? [closed]

  - by Nizar

  If we (I and my friends) would like to build web-based products and sell it using a license approach (to renew every year for example). Which server-side language will be most suitable for our purpose? We could target the following audience: - Personal sites. - Serious small-medium companies (to sell prducts such as Help-Desks, Forms,etc.) - Restaurants (to sell online order web applications). We would like to - attract as many customers as possible. - provide updates for our prodcuts (for our customers). - make our products easy to use. There are number of open-source frameworks and languages that has potential to handle our business problems (like Django, Python, Java, etc..) However, we are not sure which one is easier to learn and has variety of tools/plugins to help us in development process. Thus we need to get you experience on this hard to decide matter. Which language and its supporting framework we should choose ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >