Search Results

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

Page 13/42 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Do I have to release the code of a MIT licensed software running a GPL library?

    - by Belohlavek
    Lets say I'm using Node-Webkit, an MIT licensed app runtime. Now, let's say I decide to include a Javascript library which is GPL licensed: while I do not modify the downloaded JS file, I do write my own code making use of the library's functions. I plan to sell the final obfuscated executable and I'm wondering: what's the final license of the complete software? Do I only have to release the GPL library or does the GPL license apply for all the code I wrote? What happens to Node-Webkit's MIT license?

    Read the article

  • How to release bundled software with different licenses?

    - by mritz_p
    Recently, I was in a situation where I wanted to release a simple piece of JavaScript software under an open source license. However, I withdrew from it because the software contained several open source components that were released under different licenses. Under what license should the bundled software be released (given that various third party components are mixed into the software at code level)?

    Read the article

  • Using a GPL licensed library in a commercial app

    - by user577616
    I develop an android application and in my app I use a libary (jar) that I download from the internet. This jar is open-source under the "GNU General Public License v2". I tried to read the text of the license but had difficulty understanding it. My question is: can I use this libary without changing nothing in the jar in a commercial application? I will be making profit from selling my app which uses this GPL-ed .jar file. If possible, I would like to avoid converting my application to open-source.

    Read the article

  • Can I publish my game code under GPL? How? What about an engine?

    - 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

  • Legality of modifying and distributing the JRE

    - by herpylderp
    I see that Google App Engine apps run on a so-called secured sandbox JRE; that is, a JRE that Google modified and that makes changes to certain JRE types. This is how GAE prevents developers from writing apps that can do things like: Access the local file system via File Make remote JDBC calls Use JNDI Lots of other restrictions We have a similar need where we have an app that developers will be able to write plugins for. These plugins will need to utilize an API (a JAR) that we distribute with our app. We cannot afford for plugins to do certain things, particularly on the end user's file system, and need to modify the File class in a similar manner that GAE does. Long back-story short, this means we'll need to ship our app with a custom, modified JRE. My question: is this legal to do, or did Google likely pay Oracle some fee to modify/distribute their own JRE for app engine?

    Read the article

  • The shortest licenses

    - by Darek Nedza
    What are the shortest licenses with aims for programmers/code. I have found only MIT that is page-long. What are other licenses that have approximately the same length or even shorter? Edit: Ok, length is not only criteria(I haven't expected one-line licenses, I have understaminate you people). I need easy to read and short licenses. It is meant for people who want to use my code not for lawyers who want to read long licenses. I am creating small codes to use by most people probably free of charge. I don't want useless information to be required, for example: what is X(for example: what is software, source code etc.) very specific information(for example: you can use it shop, opera, school... free of charge; but instead "use it everywhere but don't take money" Depending on type of code I would like to allow/disallow commercial usage.

    Read the article

  • Sample code under MS-PL: must leave original comments?

    - by wtjones
    I have some files in my project that started from a sample in the all-in-one code sample browser: http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/4934b087-e6cc-44dd-b992-a71f00a2a6df Some files contain boilerplate code that I modify heavily. They contain MS comments at the top that mention the license, copyright microsoft etc. Am I required to leave the entire comment block at the top of the source files that I modify or is it okay to just include the MS-PL license in a separate file for the whole project?

    Read the article

  • How can I make sure my evening project code is mine?

    - by Sebastian
    I'm a physicist with a CS degree and just started my PhD at a tech company (wanted to do applied research). It deals with large scale finite element simulations. After reviewing their current approach, I think that a radically different method has to be applied (they are using a commercial tool which is very limited). I'd rather base my research on an open source finite element solver and write a program which makes use of it. I'd like to develop this idea in the evenings, because that's the time that best suits me for programming (during the day I prefer reading and maths) and use it at a late stage of my PhD. I'd like to have the option to release my program as open source on my website as a reference, for future personal or even commercial (e.g. consulting) use. How can I make sure that my company doesn't claim the code ownership? I don't really I thought that a version control system could help (check out only in the evening). This would document that I programmed not during regular office hours (documented elsewhere). But these data can be easily manufactured. Any other ideas? I want to stress that I'm not interested in selling software. Jurisdiction is EU, if that matters. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • GPL exception that allows linking to free licenses only?

    - by fNek
    There is the GPL license and the linking exception which allows closed-source programs to use the program as a library. There is also the slightly more restrictive LGPL (more restrictive than GPL with exception since it requires that the user can change the library in the resulting project, etc.). And there is the Cygwin exception that allows linking to open source programs. I see clear advantages: Open-Source programs may use the library. People may use these programs for closed-source programs, but then they lose the permission to use the (GPL) library. However, there are two things I don't like about the Cygwin exception: - Its legal status is disputed - I keep hearing that it is basically worthless - It requires certification by the OSI, I would rather have certification by FSF Is there an exception to the GNU General Public License that meets my requirements?

    Read the article

  • License compatibility question

    - by Ivaylo Slavov
    I have a question regarding software licenses. I plan to put a license to a framework that I have written. My intention is that the license should be open, in order to maintain a community. Also I want to control when a new version is released and which changes will be included. The license should allow the framework to be used with commercial products, therefore respecting their own license. I have done some quick research and I decided to double license my work under the Apache License 2.0 (ASL) and Eclipse Public License (EPL). My point is that the EPL will provide me the ability to control the release cycle as well as the contributions to the project and the Apache license will take care for any patents a 3rd party might want to use in a derived work. Also both are open licenses. My question is related to the GLP and LGPL licenses. If I have the above licenses to my framework, will it be possible and legal, for someone to create a derived work of my framework, that is also a derived work of, or links a library that is under the LGPL license? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To be clear I will explain how I expect things to work. The framework will define some common API for certain functionalities as well as a Wrapper class that will invoke an implementation of that API. The Wrapper will be part of the framework, but it will internally call the actual implementation. This implementation should be in a separate library, and such libraries I would like to be developed and maintained by community. Surely the community will have to access the framework but I want to limit changes to the framework by the community but I want to provide freedom for any API implementation (a derived work of the framework). The framework will enable flexible configuration mechanisms that will tell which implementation of an API will be used.

    Read the article

  • Which license text to sell my application

    - by ZedTuX
    I would like to sell (for a low price) my new application without DRM (like does Machinarium) on the Ubuntu software center and on a website with Paypal. When I have registered my application the Ubuntu software center and I've selected the licence, I just found "Proprietary" but in my application I have to provide a licence text that something different than just "Proprietary", isn't it? Do you know where I can find this kind of licence text ?

    Read the article

  • What constitutes "commercial purposes"?

    - by RoboShop
    I'm looking at this license. It says that I can use it for "non-commercial purposes". What does that mean? I see in Stack Exchange, under Network Profile there is that graph that tracks your points across your Stack Exchange accounts. It uses a control called HighCharts which have a paid and Creative Commons licensed version. So would Stack Overflow constitute a commercial site? We don't pay to use this site, but obviously the site makes money from ads, etc. Then again, there's a lot of sites that have ads who won't necessarily make a profit, it may only be subsiding their costs. But even then, you could argue that even if it is only subsiding their costs, a lot of IT companies run at a loss in order to build a big enough customer base. So where is the line here? Is it any website on the internet? Is it any website that has ads? Is it any website that turns over a profit?

    Read the article

  • Application of LGPL license on a simple algorithm

    - by georgesl
    The "scope" of the GNU license is troubling me : I know it has been answered many times ( here, here, ... ) but shouldn't we take into consideration the complexity and originality of a code before using GPL license ? I explain : I'm working on a pet project using the DTW algorithm that I have written in C using the pseudo-code given on the wikipedia page . At one point I decided to change it for a C++ implementation ( just for hone my c++ skill ) . After doing so, I've looked for an existing implementation on the web, to compare the "cleanliness" of it, and I found this one : Vectored DTW implementation, which is part of limproved, a C++ library licensed under GPL v3 . Personnally, I don't mind the GNU license because it is a personnal project, which will never led to any kind of commercial purpose, but I wonder if this implementation can abide a company using it to open their code ( and other FOSS permissions ). Theoretically, I think it can ( I may be wrong :p ), but the algorithm in question is so simple (and old) that it should not.

    Read the article

  • Legally, can I re reuse code for different customers?

    - by canice
    The company I work for develops custom factory automation applications for multiple customers. Even though each application is custom, they contain common code which is re-used across projects. One of the customers is now looking for the source code to their application, which has caused a major storm in the company. Management have decided that we can't give them the source to the shared components as they are used by other customers. I've been asked to modify the shared components 'enough' so as they aren't common. So my questions are: 1) Legally, should there be any problem with re-using common components for different customer? 2) If I really need to modify the common components, then how much is 'enough' ? (I know this sucks, but I either do this or hand in my notice). Oh yeah, and my company has no license in place with any of these customers.

    Read the article

  • Is this a typo in the Artistic License 2.0?

    - by IQAndreas
    I'm not sure if this would fit better in StackExchange/English, but regardless, there is no practical use to the answer, other than to cure my curiosity. Note this sentence at the end of the Artistic License 2.0: THE PACKAGE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. It does not affect any legal aspects of the license, but is there a reason they mixed the use of single and double quotes on AS IS? The license is so new that this wouldn't have been for "command prompt friendly" reasons. Is there special use or meaning behind this in the English language, or was it a typo?

    Read the article

  • GNU GPL LICENSE

    - by user577616
    I develop an android application and in my app I use a libary (jar) that I download from the internet. This jar is open-source under the "GNU General Public License v2". I tried to read the text of the license but had difficulty understanding it. My question is: can I use this libary without changing nothing in the jar in a commercial application? I will be making profit from selling my app which uses this GPL-ed .jar file. If possible, I would like to avoid converting my application to open-source.

    Read the article

  • What should I do with my programming project?

    - by rambodash
    I've been working on a top secret project that has potential of becoming very popular. No one has done anything like it. The problem is I have no motivation to finish it, and its about 70% done. I also don't have the ability to sell & market the product. The documentation is a pain to write. I just want to finish the project , receive my reward and move on to other things. I know that if I were to release it as a product I'm going to have to do support, and do bug fixes. No thank you! I've thought of making it open source but I'm failing to see the benefits. My hard work is just going to be up for grabs isn't it? How can I abandon my project whilst getting rewarded for the work I've done so far?

    Read the article

  • Can 7-zip be used in any *for profit* product without repercussions? [closed]

    - by drunkMonk
    I intend to use 7-zip as a utility in my product which I sell to customers. 7-zip will be shipped to them, along with my software, and 7-zip will need to perform some duties at the client side. Are there any legal issues to this ? Since 7-zip is free, I think I am allowed to use it .. but I want to be sure. Also, what happens if this piece of software ceases to be a freeware in the future ? Will i be able to use my old version ? Or will will I be forced to buy a license

    Read the article

  • Is there any way around the field-of-use restrictions in Java?

    - by Muton
    Current field-of-use restrictions defined in "Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for the Java SE Platform Products" prohibit its use in embedded systems. "General Purpose Desktop Computers and Servers" means computers, including desktop and laptop computers, or servers, used for general computing functions under end user control (such as but not specifically limited to email, general purpose Internet browsing, and office suite productivity tools). The use of Software in systems and solutions that provide dedicated functionality (other than as mentioned above) or designed for use in embedded or function-specific software applications... are excluded from this definition and not licensed under this Agreement. Do these restrictions also apply to OpenJDK and other possible implementations? Is the only way to use Java in such an environment to acquire a separate license from Oracle?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server does not give out all available licenses

    - by Erwin Blonk
    I installed the Terminal Server role in Windows Server 2003 Standard 64-bits. Still, only 2 connections are allowed. The License Manager says that there are 10 Device CALs available, which is correct, and that none are given out. For good measure I let the server reboot, to no effect. Before this, there was another server (same Windows, except that it is 32 bits) active as a licensing server. I removed the role first and then then added it to the new server. I then removed the Terminal Server Licensing Server component off the old one and added it to the new one. After that, I added to licenses. When that didn't give the required result, I rebooted to new server. Still, the new server, with licenses and all, acts as if it has the 2 license RDP. The server are all stand-alone, there is no active directory been set up. Both servers are in different workgroups. Update (4/12/10): The server has changed the entries in the Terminal Server Licensing a few times. After installing the licenses it added an entry of which the exact phrasing I forgot but it was about temporary Windows 2003 device licenses. Later it added Windows Server 2003 - TS Per Device CAL. The temporary held 2 licenses (standard RDP licenses, I think) and the other 10. At some point, seemingly unrelated from the testing we did, it used a licenses from the new pool. This morning, 2 licenses were used from the pool of 10 and only 1 from the temporary/RDP pool (I wish I had screenshots to show, it changed every few hours oir so it seems). Although I had already activated the server over the internet, and re-activated it, I decided to go through the whole procedure by phone. Long story short, here is what it says now: Existing Windows 2000 Server, type:built-in [no licenses used, I add for for sake of being complete] Windows Server 2003 - Terminal Server Per Device CAL Token, type:open [none of 10 used] Windows Server 2003 - TS Per Device CAL, type:open [3 of 10 used] As I tried to explain, this is the end result after a few changes, most of which I can't directly connect to any action from my part. Only going to the activation procedure by phone seemed to directly effect the TS, resulting in the above configuration. Still, it is impossible to connect with more than 3 people, which is 1 up from the 2 that could connect yesterday. TS does say 7 licenses are avaible. Yet it won't give them out.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server with installed licenses will not go beyond 2 connections

    - by Erwin Blonk
    I installed the Terminal Server role in Windows Server 2003 Standard 64-bits. Still, only 2 connections are allowed. The License Manager says that there are 10 Device CALs available, which is correct, and that none are given out. For good measure I let the server reboot, to no effect. Before this, there was another server (same Windows, except that it is 32 bits) active as a licensing server. I removed the role first and then then added it to the new server. I then removed the Terminal Server Licensing Server component off the old one and added it to the new one. After that, I added to licenses. When that didn't give the required result, I rebooted to new server. Still, the new server, with licenses and all, acts as if it has the 2 license RDP. The server are all stand-alone, there is no active directory been set up. Both servers are in different workgroups.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server does not give out all available licenses (solved)

    - by Erwin Blonk
    I installed the Terminal Server role in Windows Server 2003 Standard 64-bits. Still, only 2 connections are allowed. The License Manager says that there are 10 Device CALs available, which is correct, and that none are given out. For good measure I let the server reboot, to no effect. Before this, there was another server (same Windows, except that it is 32 bits) active as a licensing server. I removed the role first and then then added it to the new server. I then removed the Terminal Server Licensing Server component off the old one and added it to the new one. After that, I added to licenses. When that didn't give the required result, I rebooted to new server. Still, the new server, with licenses and all, acts as if it has the 2 license RDP. The server are all stand-alone, there is no active directory been set up. Both servers are in different workgroups. Update (4/12/10): The server has changed the entries in the Terminal Server Licensing a few times. After installing the licenses it added an entry of which the exact phrasing I forgot but it was about temporary Windows 2003 device licenses. Later it added Windows Server 2003 - TS Per Device CAL. The temporary held 2 licenses (standard RDP licenses, I think) and the other 10. At some point, seemingly unrelated from the testing we did, it used a licenses from the new pool. This morning, 2 licenses were used from the pool of 10 and only 1 from the temporary/RDP pool (I wish I had screenshots to show, it changed every few hours oir so it seems). Although I had already activated the server over the internet, and re-activated it, I decided to go through the whole procedure by phone. Update 2 (4/12/10) The problem has been solved. It seems the activation over the web, while it said to have succeeded, did not work correctly. After activating by phone, it did work. What was different from the old setup and what put me on the wrong foot from that moment, was that I now need to create seperate user account because a session with one user account will be taken over by someone else when that account is used by that person. On the previous server, it was possible to open several sesions with the same account. We now use Per Device licenses, I'm not sure what was used before. Thanks all for the replies.

    Read the article

  • What's more cost effective, Hosting your web startup on Foss or Windows?

    - by user37899
    Hi, Not coming from the windows world, I'm confused about licensing. I think my knowledge may be out of date. Before we gave up with windows web servers (IIS 2), we used to have to pay Client Access licence's. This worked out quite expensive. Is it cheaper to host 1000's of users on Windows than use Free open source software tools? http://serverfault.com/questions/124329/network-load-balancing-efficience-and-limits. This post suggests I can pay $15 a month, for unlimited users. I certainly hope that this is unbiased view, I am a professional and use the right technology for the right job. I hope i am not feeling the wrath of a windows (or linux for that matter) fanboy. Perhaps a Microsoft certified Licensing person can clear this up. Should i be recommending to startups windows servers and products over lamp? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • What Windows licenses are required to run additional terminal service sessions

    - by John P
    We need to build out a server running Windows 2008 R2 Standard that can allow up to 10 simultaneous RDP/Terminal Services connections and I'm a little confused about how the CAL licenses work. From one source I was told I needed 10 "server CALs" and an additional 10 "RDP CALs" (total of 20 CALs). From another, I was told I just needed the 10 "RDP CALs", which implicitly came with the server CAL. The Microsoft licensing website (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/licensing-rds.aspx) seems to support scenario #1, but it is still not real clear what those server CALs are needed for. Also, can we use the 2 "built-in" RDP clients, meaning we only need to purchase 8 CALs to reach a total of 10?

    Read the article

  • Reimage several of the same model PC by copying the hard disk

    - by Tim Lehner
    I have several of the same machine (Dell Precision T3500) that originally came with Windows 7 Pro (there is a Windows 7 Pro OA product key sticker on top of each one). These were initially downgraded to XP by a former IT colleague, but are now back in the pool of unused machines. I am looking to format and install Windows 7 Pro on one of them using the latest official Win7 installer ISO with SP1 and then clone the hard drive to the other machines. The questions then, are: Does this even make sense, or is there a better way to do this considering I'm only doing it to 6 machines? Does this jive with MS licensing (we are the original purchaser of the machines, and thus, presumably, the license holder...but I'm no expert)? Is it possible to apply the individual 25-char product keys to the cloned machines after cloning? How far can I go in the config process (installing corporate standard apps and such) before I have to clone to the other machines considering the licensing/key questions?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >