Search Results

Search found 4360 results on 175 pages for 'dual licensing'.

Page 25/175 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • The Apache License, v2.0: Copyright License vs Patent License

    - by user278064
    The Apache License, v2.0 [..] 2. Grant of Copyright License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. [..] 3. Grant of Patent License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including cross-claim or counterclaim in lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within theWork constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. While the meaning of the Copyright License provision is rather clear, I did not get the meaning of the Patent License provision. Which advantages does the "Grant of Patent License" provision further give to Contributors? Why are they useful? Is the "Grant of Patent License" provision useful only in case of patent litigation?

    Read the article

  • Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

    - by Chris Barry
    There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (JavaScript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then reimplemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then reimplementing it separately from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well? EDIT------ Really glad to see this topic create a good conversation. To give a bit more backing to the project, the code involved does some kind of audio analysis. I believe it is non-trivial to learn or implement, although I was prepared to embark on this task (I'm at the level where I can implement an FFT algorithm, and this was going to go beyond that.) It is a fairly low LOC script, so I didn't think it would be too hard to do a straight port. I really like the idea of rereleasing my port as well as using it in the application. I don't see any problem with that, and it would be a great way to give something back to the community. I was going to add a line about not wanting to discuss the moral issues, but I'm quite glad I didn't as it seems to have fired the debate a bit. I still feel a bit odd about using open source code to learn from. Does this mean that anything one learns from an open source project is not allowed to be used in a closed source project? And how long after or different does an implementation have to be to not be considered violation of the licence? Murky! EDIT 2 -------- Follow up question

    Read the article

  • Does it matter to you that a software is "available source" but not "open source"

    - by ccpod
    You probably know the list of open source licenses officially approved by the OSI. Most notably I guess would be the GPL, MIT, [insert your favorite license here]. I recently ran into a project which although was open source (the creator made all source code available), was not officially open source under one of those official licenses. It released the source, but made no promise to release the source in the future. It allowed modification suggestions, but made no promises to accept patches and disallowed external distribution of externally-patched versions. It allowed the use of the software in commercial or paid projects, but disallowed the sale of the software itself. I suppose it could be called "available source" not open source as we like to think of it. I can see why the management team of a company wouldn't want to do business with this software. They can't fork it, they can't sell it, they can't create their own version of the software and distribute it or sell it. But would it matter to you as part of a software engineering team who's just using this software? I can still get my work done with it, I can use it in a project for which I'm paid (but I can't sell the software itself, which I'm not in the business of doing anyway), and I can make changes to the code to make it behave differently for my needs (but I can't make those modifications public), and if I do want those modifications officially made available to others, the approval is up to the project itself and they choose whether to incorporate them in an official release or not. So we know that a company that wants to base its business on this "available source" software can't do that, but as someone from the software engineering team, would those differences matter to you or do they seem less relevant? Curious what others think of this.

    Read the article

  • How can Google publish Dalvik as Java-language compatible since Java is a trademark?

    - by Bruno Chagas
    According to this thread Java and JVM license You can write a compiler that implements the Java Language Specification or write a JVM that implements the Java Virtual Machine specification, but when you officially want to call it "Java", you have to prove it is compatible by passing the tests of the TCK (technology compatibility kit) and pay for a license from Oracle. So, how can Google (or any other java implementation for that matter) claims that Dalvik is a Java virtual machine?

    Read the article

  • Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

    - by optician
    There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (javascript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then re implemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then re-implementing it separate from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well?

    Read the article

  • Publish a software with copyright and license

    - by King Chan
    I just read some artical about publishing software and I am personally developing some random metero application at the moment. The artical were suggesting the software should have a publisher website. But what I have to put down in the publisher website to keep my copyright? Is it simply really just "Designed/Developed @ 2012 By King Chan" at the bottom of the site and software and is enough? Or do I have to even write a long paragraph of license/agreement said the user who download/use the software cannot copy the icon/functionality etc? (The Apple and Samsung things get me worry about CopyRight now....)

    Read the article

  • Choice of open source license for some components, closed source for others

    - by Peter Serwylo
    G'day, I am working on a set of multiplayer games, where different games play against each other (e.g. you play a Tetris clone, I play an Asteroids clone, but we are both competing against each other). All the games would be based on the same underlying framework written specifically for this project. I am struggling to comprehend how I would license this so that: The underlying framework is open source, so other people can create new games based on it. Some games built on the framework are open source Other games are closed source The goal is to have two bundles on something like the Android market: One free and open source package which has a collection of games Another "premium" (although I dislike that word) paid package which has a different collection of games. Usually I am fond of permissive licenses such as MIT/BSD, however I would prefer something more in the vein of the GPL for this. This is because for software such as the snes-9x SNES emulator, which is a great piece of software, there is a ton of poor quality versions being sold, whereas it would be preferable if there was just one authoritative version which was always kept up to date, and distributed for free. If the underlying framework was GPL'd, would I be able to build closed source games on top of it? Thanks for your input.

    Read the article

  • Dilemma for growing a project: Open source volunteer developers VS closed source paid / revshare developers? [closed]

    - by giorgio79
    I am trying to grow my project, and I am vaccillating between some examples. Some options seem to be: 1. open sourcing the project to draw volunteer developers. Pros This would mean anyone can try and make some money off the code that would motivate them to contribute back and grow the project. Cons Existing bigger could easily copy and paste my work so far. They can also replicate without having access to the code, but that would take more time. I also thought of using AGPL license, but again, code can still be copied without redistribution. After all, enforcing a license costs a lot of money, and I cannot just say to a possible copycat that it seems you copied my code, show me what you got. 2. Keep the project closed source, but create some kind of a developer program where they get revshare Pros I keep the main rights for the project, but still generate interest by creating a developer program. Noone can copy code easily, just with some considerable effort, but make contributions easy as a breeze. I am also seeing many companies just open source a part of their projects, like Acquia does not open source its multisite setup, or github does not open source some of its core business. Cons Less attention from open source committed devs. Conclusion So option 2 seems the most secure, but would love some feedback.

    Read the article

  • 'Unblock' / 'Yellow Out' game questions

    - by pimvdb
    I would very much like to build a game that is known as 'Unblock' or 'Yellow Out'. It is a puzzle game in which the task is to move a car out of a parking space by moving other cars in certain directions. These are links where the game can be played: Yellow Out Unblock My questions concerning this game are: Is this game actually licensed? I see it's available under two names (perhaps even more). Does this mean the game idea can be used freely? Is there an article about it? I have not been able to find it on Wikipedia. I would like to gather some information about the game so as to understand more details of it. Is there some database with puzzles available? I can just check the puzzles of existing games, but that's a pain because I have to finish a level to get on to the following one. I was wondering whether there is a general list of puzzles somewhere. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL or AGPL Web Application Framework/CMS?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL'ed Web Application Framework/CMS?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

    Read the article

  • Can I use CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree mapping) together with a GPLv3-licensed library?

    - by Erik Sjölund
    Is it possible to write an open source project that uses generated code from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) and then link it to a third-party library that is licensed under the GPL version 3? Some background information: CodeSynthesis XSD is licensed under the GPL version 2 but with an extra FLOSS exception (http://www.codesynthesis.com/projects/xsd/FLOSSE). C++ source code generated from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) needs to be linked against Xerces (http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/) that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Update I posted a similar question on the xsd-users mailing list two years ago but I didn't fully understand the answers. In that email thread, I wrote: I think it is the GPL version 3 software that doesn't allow itself be linked to software that can't be "relicensed" to GPL version 3 ( for instance GPL version 2 software ). That would also include XSD as the FLOSS exception doesn't give permission to "relicense" XSD to GPL version 3.

    Read the article

  • MPL 1.1 and APL 2.0 License compatibility

    - by Kenneth Cochran
    I am working a project that is licensed under the MPL 1.1 and would like to incorporate some code that is licensed under the APL 2.0. I know in 2010 Mozilla announced they were updating the MPL to make it more "Apache compatible" among other things. I'm no lawyer. Exactly what part(s) of the MPL 1.1 don't jive with the APL 2.0 and vice versa? The project has very few of its original contributers still actively involved so I doubt I'd be able to contact all of them to get permission to change the license.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2013 - Express for Web vs Professional [duplicate]

    - by TimS
    This question already has an answer here: Visual Studio 2012 - Express vs Professional 2 answers What are the main differences and limitations between Visual Studio 2013 Express and Visual Studio 2013 Professional? I'm specifically interested in information related to the Web edition. I need to be able to develop ASP.Net applications, Windows Services and console applications - not Desktop or Phone apps. Microsoft seems to hide this information well and I can only seem to find information relating to 2012 products and earlier.

    Read the article

  • Farseer Physics Engine and the Ms-PL License

    - by Stephen Tierney
    Am I able to produce code for a game which uses the Farseer engine and release my code under an open source license other than the Ms-PL? My concern is with the following section from the license: If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. If I do not include Farseer in my source code distribution does this give me an exemption from this clause as I am not distributing the software? My code merely uses its functions. No where in the license does it force you to provide source code for derivative works or linking works, it simply gives you the option of "if you distribute".

    Read the article

  • OpenSource License Validation [closed]

    - by Macmade
    I'm basically looking for some kind of FLOSS/OpenSource license validation service. I have special needs for some projects I'd like to open-source. I know there's actually tons of different FLOSS/OpenSource licenses, each one suitable for some specific purpose, and that creating a «new» one is not something recommended, usually. Anyway, even if I'm not an expert in the legal domain, I've got some experience with FLOSS/OpenSource, at a legal level, and it seems there's just no license covering my needs. I actually wrote the license terms I'd like to use, and contacted the FSF, asking them to review that license, as it seems (at least that's written on their website) they can do such review work. No answer. I tried repetitively, but no luck. So I'm currently looking for an alternate legal expertise about that specific license. I don't mind paying such a service, as long as I can be sure the license can be recognised as a FLOSS/OpenSource license. About the license, it's basically a mix of a BSD (third-clause) with a BOOST software license. The difference is about redistribution. Source code redistribution shall retain the copyright novices. The same applies for binary redistribution (like BSD), unless it's distributed as a library (more like BOOST). I hope this question is OK for programmers.stackexchange. I'm usually more active on StackOverflow, but it just seems the right place for such a question. So thank you for your time and enlightened advices. : )

    Read the article

  • Where can I buy freely redistributable (creative commons) game assets?

    - by Erlend
    I'd like to know about any 3D asset shops out there that specialize in game assets and, most importantly, license their assets under an open license like Creative Commons or similarly permissive. We are looking to buy some professional looking assets for use and redistribution with our open source 3D game engine. The problem is that all the commercial 3D assets we've come by are only sold under very restrictive licenses, which won't allow us to include the models in our code repository (since free code hosting repositories require that all your data, including media, is open source or otherwise copyleft) nor in turn redistribute the assets as part of our downloadable SDK. I realize this sounds like a weak business idea, since users could just buy the asset and start sharing it with everyone. But somehow this has worked for hundreds of WordPress theme shops, so I was hoping maybe someone's trying similar things for commercial game assets.

    Read the article

  • I need to develop a parser. Can I use Lex and Yacc for the purpose?

    - by Scrooge
    I need to extract very particular data from log files(of different types and formats). Since I am a recent college passout; my mind ran to using Lex and Yacc for the purpose. Now I have the following Questions 1. Will it be legal to do so ? (This product I am working for belongs to one of the biggest tech companies in the world.) 2. Also ; I would like to know if I am being too afraid to write my own parser? 3. How can I use Lex and Yacc if my product is Windows based? Please tell me if you need any clarification or extra information.

    Read the article

  • Purchasing Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate and Professional version

    - by Don
    We are a small team with 5-7 developers. We are planning to purchase Visual Studio 2010, better with one or two Ultimate version, others with professional version. The suggestion from Microsoft is getting it from retail. We find we can get them from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/buy.aspx or http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Studio-2010-Ultimate-MSDN/dp/B0038KNER0/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296675635&sr=8-2-fkmr3. From Amazon, it will be lower cost. We wonder if we buy from Microsft directly we can get additional benefits like supports, which other retailers can not provide. Anyone has any ideas? What is the cost effient way? Thanks,

    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

  • Does the LGPL allow me to do this?

    - by user1229892
    I am planning to develop a commercial software using a LGPL software. In the LGPL software that I am using some functions in a class are not fully implemented. I want to modify the LGPL code so that the class and not-implemented functions are made visible outside the dll by adding dllexport infront of class and by adding virtual keyword infront of function. Then I plan to implement those functions in my proprietary software. I am ready to distribute the modified LGPL code but not proprietary software that implements functions in the way I want. Does that violate LGPL terms and conditions?

    Read the article

  • Is there a modified LGPL license that allows static linking?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    úLGPL requires that it if a program uses LGPL-ed library, users must be able to re-link the program with a different version of the library: ... d) Do one of the following: 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source. 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. ... However in some cases, this can pose considerable difficulties. In particular, Haskell programs are almost always statically compiled. Moreover, the compiler does cross-module optimizations so it's very hard to satisfy this condition. (See this link at Haskell Wiki.) Therefore, I'm looking for a standard LGPL-like license that wouldn't require the possibility of re-linking. Some projects use their own modification of LGPL, for example wxWidgets. But I'd rather use some standard license that is somewhat more official, perhaps checked by some law experts, and (L)GPL compatible. Is there some like that? (Also I'd be interested to know if are there some unforeseen consequences of such a modification of LGPL.)

    Read the article

  • Avoid GPL violation by moving library out of process

    - by Andrey
    Assume there is a library that is licensed under GPL. I want to use it is closed source project. I do following: Create small wrapper application around that GPL library that listens to socket, parse messages and call GPL library. Then returns results back. Release it's sources (to comply with GPL) Create client for this wrapper in my main application and don't release sources. I know that this adds huge overhead compared to static/dynamic linking, but I am interested in theoretical way.

    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

  • Question about the no-endorsment clause on the BSD license

    - by Earlz
    I'm developing a non-free library and I want to use Bcrypt.Net in it. The clause in question: Neither the name of BCrypt.Net nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. To what extent does this mean I can't use the name of Bcrypt.Net? For instance, could I say "the only ASP.Net authentication library capable of using Bcrypt" or can I even include "supports Bcrypt for password hashing" in promotional materials? Note: I do not actually modify any of Bcrypt.Net's code

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >