Search Results

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

Page 2/98 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• 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

• GPL license and eiffel studio

  - by Michael Jenneson

  On https://www2.eiffel.com/download/download_info.aspx?id=eiffelstudio&info=false&mirrors=eiffelstudio you can download the IDE "eiffelstudio". They have GPL as their license but they also specify that "The GPL version is for the purpose of developing open-source software only! If you want to evaluate EiffelStudio for commercial software development, please download our Enterprise Evaluation Edition." However as far as i know this is directly against the gpl. Can they really specify such restrictions while adhering to the GPL?

  Read the article

• Does ASL License complies with MS-Pl license?

  - by John Simons

  I would like to redistribute a compiled version of Yahoo! UI Library: YUI Compressor for .Net (http://yuicompressor.codeplex.com), that according to the web site is licensed under MS-Pl (http://yuicompressor.codeplex.com/license). The project I work in is release under the terms of Apache Software Foundation License 2.0. According to the MS-Pl license "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." , the term complies is not very clear! Does ASL License complies with MS-Pl license?

  Read the article

• GPLv2 - Multiple AI chess engines to bypass GPL

  - by Dogbert

  I have gone through a number of GPL-related questions, the most recent being this one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3248823/legal-question-about-the-gpl-license-net-dlls/3249001#3249001 I'm trying to see how this would work, so bear with me. I have a simple GUI interface for a game of Chess. It essentially can send/receive commands to/from an external chess engine (ie: Tong, Fruit, etc). The application/GUI is similar in nature to XBoard ( http://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/ ), but was independently designed. After going through a number of threads on this topic, it seems that the FSF considers dynamically linking against a GPLv2 library as a derivative work, and that by doing so, the GPLv2 extends to my proprietary code, and I must release the source to my entire project. Other legal precedents indicate the opposite, and that dynamic linking doesn't cause the "viral" effect of the GPL to propagate to my proprietary code. Since there is no official consensus that can give a "hard-and-fast" answer to the dynamic linking question, would this be an acceptable alternative: I build my chess GUI so that it sends/receives the chess engine AI logic as text commands from an external interface library that I write The interface library I wrote itself is then released under the GPL The interface library is only used to communicate via a generic text pipe to external command-line chess engines The chess engine itself would be built as a command-line utility rather than as a library of any sort, and just sends strings in the Universal Chess Interface of Chess Engine Communication Protocol ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Engine_Communication_Protocol ) format. The one "gotcha" is that the interface library should not be specific to one single GPL'ed chess engine, otherwise the entire GUI would be "entirely dependent" on it. So, I just make my interface library so that it is able to connect to any command-line chess engine that uses a specific format, rather than just one unique engine. I could then include pre-built command-line-app versions of any of the chess engines I'm using. Would that sort of approach allow me to do the following: NOT release the source for my UI Release the source of the interface library I built (if necessary) Use one or more chess engines and bundle them as external command-line utilities that ship with a binary version of my UI Thank you.

  Read the article

• GPL - what is distribution?

  - by Martin Beckett

  An interesting point came up on another thread about alleged misappropriation of a GPL project. In this case the enterprise software was used by some large companies who essentially took the code, changed the name, removed the GPL notices and used the result. The point was - if the company did this and only used the software internally then there isn't any distribution and that's perfectly legal under GPL. Modifications by their own employees for internal use would also be allowed. So At what point does it become a distribution? Presumably if they brought in outside contractors under 'work for hire' their modifications would also be internal and so not a distribution. If they hired an external software outfit to do modifications and those changes were only used internally by the company - would those changes be distributed? Does the GPL apply to the client or to the external developers? If the company then give the result to another department, another business unit, another company? What if the other company is a wholly owned subsidiary? ps. yes I know the answer is ask a lawyer. But all the discussion I have seen over GPL2/GPL3 distribution has been about webservices - not about internal use.

  Read the article

• Help me choose an Open-Source license

  - by Spartan-117A

  So I've done lots of open-source work. I have released many projects, most of which have fallen under GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensing. Now I have a new project (an implementation library), and I can't find a license that meets my needs (although I believe one may exist, hence this question). This is the list of things I'm looking for in the license. Appropriate credit given for ALL usage or derivative works. No warranty expressed or implied. The library may be freely used in ANY other open-source/free-software product (regardless of license, GPL, BSD, EPL, etc). The library may be used in closed-source/commercial products ONLY WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION. GPL - Useless to me, obviously, as it completely precludes any and all closed-source use, violating requirement (4). BSD/LGPL/MIT - Won't work, because they wouldn't require closed-source developers to get my permission, violating requirement (4). If it wasn't for that, BSD (FreeBSD in particular) would look like a good choice here. EPL/MPL - Won't work either, as the code couldn't be combined with GPL-code, therefore violating requirement (3). Also I'm pretty sure they allow commercial works without asking permission, so they don't meet (4) either. Dual-licensing is an option, but in that case, what combination would hold to all four requirements? Basically, I want BSD minus the commercial use, plus an option to use in commercial/closed-source as long as the developer has my written permission. EDIT: At the moment, thinking something like multiple-licensing under GPL/LGPL plus something else for commercial?

  Read the article

• Correct way to sell commercial product with GPL small scripts in it

  - by Victor

  I'm developing a commercial cms. I'm going to sell this cms. I use jQuery, also I use date and time picker jQuery plugin in my cms, I can say this is just a 1% of my big script, I don't want sell my whole program as GPL because of these two small integrations (jQuery and DateTime picker). Please ask on these questions: I'm worry about license issue. What is the best way to sell my product(licensing type)? Is there any way to provide some partial licenses? I mean just add small notification in my license that the jQuery and The DateTime picker is still in GPL, but other part of this CMS has commercial license? If there isn't any way to sell commercial product as close source with GPL small parts, what is the most strong license for selling my product to keep it safe? Please sorry for my English

  Read the article

• Can I re-license Academic Free License code under 2-Clause BSD / ITC?

  - by Stefano Palazzo

  I want to fork a piece of code licensed under the Academic Free License. For the project, it would be preferable to re-license it under the ISC License or the 2-Clause BSD license, which are equivalent. I understand that the AFL grants me things such as limitation of liability, but licensing consistency is much more important to the project, especially since we're talking about just 800 lines of code, a quarter of which I've modified in some way. And it's very important for me to give these changes back to the community, given the fact that this is software relevant to security - I need the public scrutiny that I'll get by creating a public fork. In short: At the top of the file I want to say this, or something like it: # Licensed under the Academic Free License, version 3 # Copyright (C) 2009 Original Author # Licensed under the ISC License # Copyright (C) 2012 Stefano Palazzo # Copyright (C) 2012 Company Am I allowed to do this? My research so far indicates that it's not clear whether the AFL is GPL-Compatible, and I can't really understand any of the stuff concerning re-licensing to other permissive licenses. As a stop gap, I would also be okay with re-licensing under the GPL, however: I can find no consensus (though I can find disagreement) on whether this is allowed at all, and I don't want to risk it, of course. Wikipedia: ISC License Wikipedia: Academic Free License

  Read the article

• What are the real life implications for an Apache 2 license?

  - by Duopixel

  I want to use SVG Edit for project. This software is distributed under the Apache 2 license. I've seen that: all copies, modified or unmodified, are accompanied by a copy of the licence all modifications are clearly marked as being the work of the modifier all notices of copyright, trademark and patent rights are reproduced accurately in distributed copies the licensee does not use any trademarks that belong to the licensor Do these pertain to the code or should I display the license somewhere in the GUI? The orignal software displays a "powered by SVG Edit", is it ok if I remove this? And most importantly: what is the correct etiquette for doing this? I don't want to be an asshole, but at the same time I want to simplify the UI as much as possible and removing the link will be part of it if it's not considered rude.

  Read the article

• How to include an apache library with my opensource code?

  - by OscarRyz

  I have this opensource code with MIT license that uses an Apache 2.0 licensed library. I want to include this in my project, so it can be built right away. In the point 4 of that license explains how to redistribute it: excerpt: 4 . Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. I'm not creating a derivative work ( I plan to provide it as it is ). I don't have a NOTICE file, just my my own LICENSE.txt file. Question: Where should I put something along the lines: "This project uses Xyz library distributed under Apache2.0 ..."? What's recommented? Should I provide the apache license file too? Or would be enough if I just say "Find the license online here...http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" I hope someone who has done this in the past may shed some light on the matter.

  Read the article

• Proper attribution of derived work in a GPL project

  - by Anton Gogolev

  This is a continuation of me rewriting GPL project. What will be the correct way of attributing my project as being a derivative of some other GPL-licensed project? So far I came up with: HgSharp Original Copyright Matt Mackall <[email protected]> and contributors. The following code is a derivative work of the code from the Mercurial project, which is licensed GPLv2. This code therefore is also licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License, verison 2. For information on the license of this code when distributed with and used in conjunction with the other modules in the HgSharp project, please see the root-level COPYING file. Copyright 2011-2012 Anton Gogolev <[email protected]>

  Read the article

• Releasing a project under GPL v2 or later without the source code of libraries

  - by Luciano Silveira

  I wrote a system in Java that I want to release under the terms of GPL v2 or later. I've used Apache Maven to deal with all the dependencies of the system, so I don't have the source code of any of the libraries used. I've already checked, all the libraries were released under GPL-compatible licenses (Apache v2, 3-clause BSD, MIT, LGPL v2 and v2.1). I have 3 questions about this scenario: 1) Can I release a package with only the binaries of code I wrote, not including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 2) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 3) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote plus the source code of the libraries licensed under the LGPL license?

  Read the article

• sell applications that run only on a GPL v2 Server

  - by gadri mabrouk

  I have been testing Pentaho BI server community edition, and after reading their licensing terms I found out that the community edition is under GPLv2. As you may know the server is intended to host different types of files and applications (like reports, olap cubes,etc...) My question is : are we allowed to sell applications that run on the GPLv2 server ? (we will maybe modify the server source code a bit but we won't charge it to our clients. thus the modified GPL server will be just an execution environment or a container for the reports and applications that we intend to sell) ? this suggests that our clients must install the GPL v2 edition first and then buy from us the reports that work on it but not their source code. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Is my concept in open source license correct?

  - by tester

  I would like to justify whether my concept in the open source license is correct, as you know that, misunderstanding the terms may lead to a serious law sue. Thank you. The main difference among the open source license is whether the license is copyleft. Copyleft license means allow the others to reproduce, modify and distribute the products but the released product is bound by the same licensing restriction. That means they have to use the same license for the modified version. Also, the copyleft license require all the released modified version to be free software. On the other hand, if any others create derived work incorporating non-copyleft licensed code, they can choose any license for the code. The serveral kinds of license and comparsion GPL is a restrictive license. Software requires to released as GPL license if that integrate or is modified from the other GPL license software . The library used in developing GPL license software are also restricted to GPL and LGPL , proprietary software are not allowed to employ (or complied with) in any part of the GPL application. LGPL is similar to GPL , but was more permissive with regarding allow the using of other non-GPL software. BSD is relatively simple license, it allow developer to do anything on the original source code . The license holder do not hold any legal responsibilities for their released product. Apache license is evolved from the BSD license. The legal terms are improved and are written by legal professionals in a more modern way. It covers comprehensive intellectual property ownership and liability issues. Also, are there any popular license beside these? Thank you

  Read the article

• Commercial product using a GPL OS

  - by pfried

  we are planning to create a commercial product. The product consists of come MCUs and a small computer (we are developping on a raspberry pi at the moment). The computer needs an operating system as we would like keep things like WLAN and booting as simple as possible. We create some software running on this computer (node.js application). The most operating systems like Arch Linux are licenced under the GPL. The product we would sell contains the computer with preinstalled OS and software. This system operates as a central access point to MCU devices and is able to control them. We use other's software in our product. We do not modify their source code. The product (the computer part) consists of a computer, an OS and software we create. How does the use of an OS affect our own code (licence)? Is there a possibility of avoiding GPL for our own code? eg. shipping the software seperated? Are there any effects to other components of our product, eg. the MCU part? The node.js application delivers a WebApp to the client where it is executed. Are there any effects (As we would like to sell parts of the code as an additional App on the App Stores)? I know we make use of the work of the community and i respect this. The problem is: The software alone is kind of useless without the MCU devices. I do not expect a legal advice.

  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

• 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

• 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

• As Perl is GPL licensed, are my Perl scripts forced to be GPL licensed?

  - by DEzra

  I am trying to make sure I license some personal perl scripts correctly. Do any Perl scripts that I create need to be licensed as GPL (i.e a copyleft license) due to using the GPL licensed Perl interpreter? Please can you back up any answers with appropriate links. Thanks

  Read the article

• GPL license procedure product

  - by Jada

  Hi, We have a product(client-server) which we want to release under GPL. What is the procedure that needs to be followed? We also have a EULA text, what needs to be added there? Just adding the GPL license to each sourcecode file is sufficient, is it? Please advise. Regards -Jad

  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

• Opensource, noncommercial License ?

  - by nick-russler

  Hey, i want to publish my software under a opensource license with the following conditions: you are allowed to: Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work use a modified version of the code in your application you are not allowed to: publish modified versions of the code use the code in anything commercial is there a software license out there that fits my needs ? (crosspost: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4558546/opensource-noncommercial-license)

  Read the article

• Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

  - by DavidJFelix

  I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

  Read the article

• using GNU GPL v2 software as pointers to solution to problem

  - by Patrick

  I am coding a PHP serial access class and have been taking pointers from the PHP-serial class on Google Code (here). That class is based on PHP 4 and I'm creating a PHP 5 class that allows more functionality and is specific to some business demands I have. There is no code copied and I have done all the coding. Does the class I'm writing fall under the Google Code's GPL or am I free to select a license that I feel is appropriate? I'm not sure of the standard that applies to licensing when you are only looking to another work for pointers.

  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

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >