Search Results

Search found 132 results on 6 pages for 'lgpl'.

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

Page 2/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • Can I use a previous version of iText(Sharp) under the LGPL?

    - by Jens
    I'd like to use iTextSharp for PDF manipulation. I need it to run under medium trust (webserver) and to be free of charge (sice this is a very small project), therefore there is not much competition. Unfortunately, since I need it for a commercial project, I cannot the AGPL introduced with version 5.0. Do you know if I may use the 4.x versions using the LGPL? Or is their license automatically updated to the APGL?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Questions about software licensing

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

    Read the article

  • (L)GPL license questions

    - by Marco
    I'm uncertain about a few licensing questions. I develop a closed source application, that's communicating with an open source server. Are my assumptions correct? Can I use an unmodified (L)GPL software on the server-side? I think yes Can I use and modify (L)GPL software on the server-side? I think yes because I'm not distributing the server application The client uses an communication library licensed under LGPL. Can I make changes to this library? Yes, as long as I provide the source of the library with the client software Can I take only certain parts of an LGPL licensed software and make a new project? Yes if it's licensed under LGPL too.

    Read the article

  • GPL/LGPL-licensed images + iPhone development

    - by cubic1271
    Since the majority of legal links / READMEs I've found when browsing icon sets refer me to the general GPL / LGPL (as opposed to a specialized version of some kind) when I'm looking at license restrictions, I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out what would constitute source code, linking, etc. when it comes to images and / or icons. One specific example: under section 5 of the GPL, modifications must carry notices in the source code. . . how do I do that with an image? I guess I could try to find a few unused bits and encode my modifications in there (steganography, anyone?), but somehow that doesn't seem like what the license is shooting for. There are also other sections in there where I have no idea how to begin to comply with. Thus, I'm really confused. What exactly are the implications of using GPL and / or LGPL licensed images in something that isn't itself GPL'd? Specifically, I'd like to know what using GPL icons in an iPhone application might mean from a legal point of view. It feels like I'm missing something obvious here; any enlightenment / references would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • What's the case when using software licensed under GPL or LGPL

    - by Johnas
    With everything legal and in line with the ethical questions in software development, is it allowed to use an open source product in my software that I charge a fee for when selling? Scenario: I've developed an PHP Content Management System (CMS) and use some Linux executables licensed under GPL or LGPL in my CMS to accomplish various tasks like image editing. I'm selling the CMS and also including the executables when I deliver the product. I do not edit the source code of the GPL software, just using it.

    Read the article

  • Can I redistribute Phing with non-free software?

    - by Matt1776
    I am having trouble understanding the terms of the LGPL in light of a program that is not written in C or C++. They speak of libraries being linked and 'derivitive' works. If I were to package a php program and sell it, but within the program the deployment mechanism used the phing package (full up with the entire contents as is and un modified) - would I be violating the terms of the LGPL? For example, If this was a C program that was compiled by linking the phing 'library' then the answer would be easier, it is a derivitive work and therefore unless released under the GPL will not be considered free and also a violation. But this situation is different. I am not linking and not producing a derivitive, i am simply using phing as a deployment tool to move files around and set up the enviornment. Can someone shed some light? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • What are the licence restrictions for the RxTx Library

    - by Azder
    I want to make an Application that uses RxTx version 2.2pre2 to work with Serial Ports. What are the Licence restrictions, since it is an "LGPL v 2.1 + Linking Over Controlled Interface" licenced library if I don't use the Sun's javax.comm.* interface, but the RxTx's own gnu.io.* when importing into Java Files?

    Read the article

  • Writing PDF reader Library

    - by Stefano
    I have searched for PDF reader library that is licenced under LGPL or the like but could not find. I found only GPLs. Now I need a help to write my own library to read the PDF file and display it in my app. I have downloaded PDF Specs 1.7 from Adobe and I'm trying to search out a beginner tutorial but I'm yet to find one. Is there a beginner tutorial for writing my own reader library (only reader)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Giving proper credit to a projects contributors

    - by Greg B
    I've recently been working with an opensource library for a commercial product. The opensource code is distributed from the website of the company who sells the proprietary product as a zip file. The library is a (direct) port to C# of the original library which is in Java. As such, it uses methods instead of getter/setter properties. The code contains copyright notices to the supplier of the product. The C# port was originally provided to the company by a 3rd party individual. I have modified the source to be more C# like and added a couple of small features. I want to put my version of the code out there (Google code or where ever) so that C# users of the software can benefit from a more native feeling library. How can I and/or how should I amend the copyright notice to give proper credit to The comercial owner of the original source The guy who provided the original C# port Myself and anyone else who contributes to the project in the future The source is provided under the LGPL V2.1,

    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

  • Can i use Twig and Doctrine in my project which is licensed under GPL license?

    - by aRagnis
    Can i license my open sourced CMS under GPL v2/v3 license if it uses Twig (BSD License) and Doctrine (LGPL)? And i also want to know, that do i have to put this text to teh beginning of all my source files... * This file is part of Foobar. * * Foobar is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with Foobar. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. ..or can i do it like phpbb does? /** * * @package mcp * @version $Id$ * @copyright (c) 2005 phpBB Group * @license http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php GNU Public License * */

    Read the article

  • PySide 1.0.0 beta 2, le support complet des interfaces déclaratives arrive dans ce bindind LGPL Python de Qt

    Voici donc sortie la deuxième beta de PySide, le binding Python de Qt initié par Nokia, dont la principale différence avec le binding historique, PyQt, réside dans la licence : PySide est disponible sous LGPL, une licence moins restrictive que la GPL employée par PyQt. Ainsi, un binding Python de Qt peut être utilisé pour des développements propriétaires sans obligation de payer une licence commerciale. La première version beta de PySide (la bien dénommée beta 1) apportait un grand changement par rapport aux versions précédents (0.4.2 et avant) : un changement dans l'ABI (Application Binary Interface), ce qui, pour rester en dehors des détails techniques, obligeait à recompiler toute application se basant sur PySide (notamment le module Python). Cependant, ainsi, le projet ...

    Read the article

  • Is there a free (LGPL compatible) Grid plugin for jQuery that has similiar capabilities to the Ext-J

    - by Ehrann Mehdan
    One of the most appealing features of Ext-JS is the Grid control in my opinion. I was searching for something free that does something close and have set my hopes on jQuery. I haven't found a jQuery (or other LGPL compatible) Table / Grid plugin that allows to: Reorder columns by dragging Resize columns by dragging Add or Remove columns on the fly Have a default good looking UI (subjective, but Ext-JS look I think is a concensus) In addition to the rest most grid controls have (Sort, Paging etc) Is there a free (LGPL) jQuery plugin that does the above?

    Read the article

  • Premier jour de Qt chez Digia, après son rachat de Nokia : le framework restera disponible sous GPL et LGPL

    Il y a une quinzaine de mois, Nokia « refilait » le support commercial de Qt à Digia ; certaines rumeurs parlaient déjà d'une revente complète de tout ce qui concerne le framework, il ne s'agissait que du support commercial ? à l'époque. Ces rumeurs se révèlent maintenant confirmées : Digia s'apprête à acquérir tout ce qui concerne Qt de Nokia (toutes les activités Qt, dont le développement du produit, les licences open source et commerciales, tout le service commercial). Ceci intervient dans une période relativement sombre pour Nokia (« Nokia coule-t-il à pic ? »), avec parfois des décisions douloureuses et, selon certains, injustifiables (pour se relan...

    Read the article

  • Nouvelle licence pour Qt : le framework sera- également disponible sous la LGPL 3, avec de nouveaux modules libres

    Depuis les débuts de Qt, il y a une vingtaine d'années, l'édition libre existe. Elle fut d'abord limitée aux plateformes UNIX et X11, puis s'est progressivement ouverte, notamment pour Windows et diverses systèmes embarqués. De même, la licence a évolué : depuis une licence non standard, de plus en plus libre avec les versions (qui se souvient de la QPL ?), Qt 4 est passé à la GPL 2, ce qui a eu pour effet d'éliminer les conflits juridiques qui empêchaient d'utiliser Qt dans une application GPL,...

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >