Search Results

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

Page 26/175 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to create and distribute an app for the BlackBerry Playbook that doesn't go into App World?

    - by Drackir
    My company is looking to create an app that we'll use internally on several (about 20) BlackBerry Playbooks. We don't want it to be put up on App World because it's just an internal application. I'm wondering if there are any: Costs involved with this outside of paying a programmer to develop it - i.e. Are there any license fees, deployment fees, etc. License issues involved with deploying the app to multiple Playbooks without deploying it to App World Limitations on functionality of the app Other things we should be taking into consideration If it matters, the app will be collecting information and downloading it to a computer via USB.

    Read the article

  • How to credit other authors in an open source project

    - by erik
    I have a pet project that I am planning to release as open source at some point in the not-too-distant future. A couple of the files use or are mostly code that was taken from a project released under the New BSD License. While I have changed it to fit my needs and added some small stuff, the algorithm and the functionality is basically exactly the same. I want to make sure that the author of the code gets credit and that the license is not broken, but I also want to make the reader aware that this is not the code as it was orignally released. How should I approach this? Should I isolate the code as much as possible and just retain the original license? Maybe put all the files that contain foreign code in their own folder and add a readme explaining what has been added/removed? There must have been tons of projects using other open source code. What is the standard approach to this?

    Read the article

  • Rewrote GNU GPL v2 code in another language: can I change a license?

    - by Anton Gogolev
    I rewrote some parts of Mercurial (which is licensed under GNU GPL v2) in C#. Naturally, I looked a lot into original Python code and some parts are direct translations from Python to C#. Is is possible have "my code" licensed under different terms or to even make a part of a closed-source commercial application? If not, can I re-license "my-code" under LGPL, open-source it and then use this open-sourced C# library in my closed-source commercial application?

    Read the article

  • .NET licenses and project worths millions

    - by Ivan Tanasijevic
    I have a question about. NET licenses. I heard that in the case when project becomes worth millions, Microsoft have rights on great percent of this amount. If this is true, then how are things with social network which is built with ASP.NET MVC. Is this the same situation as in the case of the profit coming from selling software, because in this situation profit comes from marketing not from direct selling software.

    Read the article

  • Is there an open source license for this?

    - by Philip
    I have written code at home, on my own time and using my own knowledge and equipment, while under no contract or NDA. I want to make this code open source so that I can use it in software I write for an employer, without denying myself the right to use it at home or elsewhere later. I'm not sure if saying it is in the "public domain" would fit this purpose, or if I need to find an open source license. I want anyone to be able to use the code in closed source proprietary software with zero requirements for including a license with the source or binary. And I want to minimize the risk of anyone being sued for using it. (I'm aware that one can never be 100% safe from being sued.) Is there an open source license that fits this purpose? To what extent is what I want to do even possible? I wouldn't mind putting the license in comments in the code files themselves, but that obviously doesn't go with the binary.

    Read the article

  • Rights and use of developed software

    - by Nils Munch
    I have been working on a piece of software for a company, that they wish to resell. There was an mail-based agreement upon a flat hourly rate for my work, and eager me chose to accept a rather low fee. Due to the stress and tempo of the task, a direct contract was never formed or signed. The software was developed locally on my machine, and I was pretty much alone with it, except by excellent help from StackOverflow when I got stuck. Now, the software is nearing completion, I suddenly hear that they have hired a new developer to make the same piece of software as me, and that I was expected to resign within long. Confused I ask around, and realize that the CEO of the company had informed the rest of the company that I was terminally ill and had cancer, and was expected to leave the company soon. Since I'm perfectly healthy, this confused me even more, until I realized what was going on. When I confronted my boss with this, I was no longer seen as a member of the company, and I left the same day, never to return. Later, I raised the question about my missing pay, since I had been working for quite a bit, and not received any payment for my software. I saw that they had already sold a fair copy of my software, and since it's not exactly sold cheap, the company should have plenty of gold to pay me. The company refused, and said that they owned the software, and everything it contained. That was a lot of drama, but my question is this: Who has the rights to the software ? The source code had my personal watermarks and copyrights inprinted, but they have since simply deleted it. The company claim that they have all the rights, because they have a website made about the product, where they write that they have "All rights reserved" in the bottom. My instinct tells me that if a company buys a service like this, and then refuses to pay their developer, then they should not be allowed to keep, and much less resell the product. I have not signed any agreements about giving the company the use of this product, I have made it in my own time and without help from the rest of the company. This all takes place in Denmark, Europe, but I would guess that the rules about this is somewhat universal. Im not the strongest person to legal-talk, so I might be wrong.

    Read the article

  • How can I best manage making open source code releases from my company's confidential research code?

    - by DeveloperDon
    My company (let's call them Acme Technology) has a library of approximately one thousand source files that originally came from its Acme Labs research group, incubated in a development group for a couple years, and has more recently been provided to a handful of customers under non-disclosure. Acme is getting ready to release perhaps 75% of the code to the open source community. The other 25% would be released later, but for now, is either not ready for customer use or contains code related to future innovations they need to keep out of the hands of competitors. The code is presently formatted with #ifdefs that permit the same code base to work with the pre-production platforms that will be available to university researchers and a much wider range of commercial customers once it goes to open source, while at the same time being available for experimentation and prototyping and forward compatibility testing with the future platform. Keeping a single code base is considered essential for the economics (and sanity) of my group who would have a tough time maintaining two copies in parallel. Files in our current base look something like this: > // Copyright 2012 (C) Acme Technology, All Rights Reserved. > // Very large, often varied and restrictive copyright license in English and French, > // sometimes also embedded in make files and shell scripts with varied > // comment styles. > > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > #ifdef UNDER_RESEARCH > holographicVisualization(on); > #endif > } And we would like to convert them to something like: > // GPL Copyright (C) Acme Technology Labs 2012, Some rights reserved. > // Acme appreciates your interest in its technology, please contact [email protected] > // for technical support, and www.acme.com/emergingTech for updates and RSS feed. > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > } Is there a tool, parse library, or popular script that can replace the copyright and strip out not just #ifdefs, but variations like #if defined(UNDER_RESEARCH), etc.? The code is presently in Git and would likely be hosted somewhere that uses Git. Would there be a way to safely link repositories together so we can efficiently reintegrate our improvements with the open source versions? Advice about other pitfalls is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Should companies require developers to credit code they didn't write?

    - by sunpech
    In academia, it's considered cheating if a student copies code/work from someone/somewhere else without giving credit, and tries to pass it off as his/her own. Should companies make it a requirement for developers to properly credit all non-trivial code and work that they did not produce themselves? Is it useful to do so, or is it simply overkill? I understand there are various free licenses out there, but if I find stuff I like and actually use, I really feel compelled to give credit via comment in code even if it's not required by the license (or lack thereof one).

    Read the article

  • How does the GPL work in regards to languages like Dart which compile to other languages?

    - by Peter-W
    Google's Dart language is not supported by any Web Browsers other than a special build of Chromium known as Dartium. To use Dart for production code you need to run it through a Dart-JavaScript compiler/translator and then use the outputted JavaScript in your web application. Because JavaScript is an interpreted language everyone who receives the "binary"(Aka, the .js file) has also received the source code. Now, the GNU General Public License v3.0 states that: "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Which would imply that the original Dart code in addition to the JavaScript code must also be provided to the end user. Does this mean that any web applications written in Dart must also provide the original Dart code to all visitors of their website even though a copy of the source code has already been provided in a human readable/writable/modifiable form?

    Read the article

  • Using an AGPL 3.0-licensed library for extra functionality in an iOS app

    - by Arnold Sakhnov
    I am building an iOS application, and I am planning to incorporate an AGPL 3.0-licensed library to it to provide some extra (non-essential) functionality. I’ve got a couple of questions regarding this: Do I understand it right that this still obliges me to publish the source of my app open? If yes, does it have to be open to the general public, or only to those who have downloaded the app? Does this allow me to distribute the app for a fee?

    Read the article

  • Reasons NOT to open source not-for-profit code?

    - by naught101
    I am a big fan of open source code. I think I understand most of the advantages of going open source. I'm a science student researcher, and I have to work with quite a surprising amount of software and code that is not open source (either it's proprietary, or it's not public). I can't really see a good reason for this, and I can see that the code, and people using it, would definitely benefit from being more public (if nothing else, in science it's vital that your results can be replicated if necessary, and that's much harder if others don't have access to your code). Before I go out and start proselytising, I want to know: are there any good arguments for not releasing not-for-profit code publicly, and with an OSI-compliant license? (I realise there are a few similar questions on SE, but most focus on situations where the code is primarily used for making money, and I couldn't much relevant in the answers.) Clarification: By "not-for-profit", I am including downstream profit motives, such as parent-company brand-recognition and investor profit expectations. In other words, the question relates only to software for which there is NO profit motive tied to the software what so ever.

    Read the article

  • Do you tend to write your own name or your company name in your code?

    - by Connell Watkins
    I've been working on various projects at home and at work, and over the years I've developed two main APIs that I use in almost all AJAX based websites. I've compiled both of these into DLLs and called the namespaces Connell.Database and Connell.Json. My boss recently saw these namespaces in a software documentation for a project for the company and said I shouldn't be using my own name in the code. (But it's my code!) One thing to bear in mind is that we're not a software company. We're an IT support company, and I'm the only full-time software developer here, so there's not really any procedures on how we should write software in the company. Another thing to bear in mind is that I do intend on one day releasing these DLLs as open-source projects. How do other developers group their namespaces within their company? Does anyone use the same class libraries in personal and in work projects? Also does this work the other way round? If I write a class library entirely at work, who owns that code? If I've seen the library through from start to finish, designed it and programmed it. Can I use that for another project at home? Thanks, Update I've spoken to my boss about this issue and he agrees that they're my objects and he's fine for me to open-source them. Before this conversation I started changing the objects anyway, which was actually quite productive and the code now suits this specific project more-so than it did previously. But thank you to everyone involved for a very interesting debate. I hope all this text isn't wasted and someone learns from it. I certainly did. Cheers,

    Read the article

  • Is there an open source license that allows any use, except within a GPL/copyleft project? [on hold]

    - by Marcos Scriven
    I would like to open source some code with a permissive license (say MIT/BSD) I would be happy for it to be used both commercially and in any open source project that is not copyleft (GPL being the main one obviously). I looked at the list of non-GPL compatible licenses here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses But none seemed to be quite what I wanted. Is there such a license already? If not, would it even be possible to do this? EDIT: I have been asked to edit this question to clarify. I'm not sure how it's unclear, as that wasn't stated. What I would like to know is simply the answer to the topic - can anyone point to a standard licence that is permissive as possible, while restricting use in copyleft licence. I'm not clear why the question would be suspended by the same person that edited spelling differences (apparently British English is a 'mistake') in the question earlier, and by another that had answered licencing questions in other posts.

    Read the article

  • How does the GPL static vs. dynamic linking rule apply to interpreted languages?

    - by ekolis
    In my understanding, the GPL prohibits static linking from non-GPL code to GPL code, but permits dynamic linking from non-GPL code to GPL code. So which is it when the code in question is not linked at all because the code is written in an interpreted language (e.g. Perl)? It would seem to be too easy to exploit the rule if it was considered dynamic linking, but on the other hand, it would also seem to be impossible to legally reference GPL code from non-GPL code if it was considered static! Compiled languages at least have a distinction between static and dynamic linking, but when all "linking" is just running scripts, it's impossible to tell what the intent is without an explicit license! Or is my understanding of this issue incorrect, rendering the question moot? I've also heard of a "classpath exception" which involves dynamic linking; is that not part of the GPL but instead something that can be added on to it, so dynamic linking is only allowed when the license includes this exception?

    Read the article

  • Isn't GPL enough to make a software free as in free speech?

    - by user61852
    I have read people rebutting the fact that a certain software is free as in free speech, even when it is licensed under GPL. Some say Java isn't free because to obtain a professional certification you must get it from Oracle. Some say Java JDK is not free to re-distribute. Some people even say the openJDK is not free or open. But Java is officially GPL. Doesn't GPL explicitly mean you are free to re-distribute ? Isn't GPL enough to make a software free as in free speech ? How can Java be both GPL and not-free as in free speech ? Is there is any license that trully makes a software free beyond any possible subjetive point of view? EDIT: These question is not about names or trademarks, it's about the code.

    Read the article

  • Does this BSD-like license achieve what I want it to?

    - by Joseph Szymborski
    I was wondering if this license is: self defeating just a clone of an existing, better established license practical any more "corporate-friendly" than the GPL too vague/open ended and finally, if there is a better license that achieves a similar effect? I wanted a license that would (in simple terms) be as flexible/simple as the "Simplified BSD" license (which is essentially the MIT license) allow anyone to make modifications as long as I'm attributed require that I get a notification that such a derived work exists require that I have access to the source code and be given license to use the code not oblige the author of the derivative work to have to release the source code to the general public not oblige the author of the derivative work to license the derivative work under a specific license Here is the proposed license, which is just the simplified BSD with a couple of additional clauses (all of which are bolded). Copyright (c) (year), (author) (email) All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions of source code. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions in binary form The copyright holder(s) must be granted access to the source code and/or the binary form of any redistribution upon the copyright holder's request. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

    Read the article

  • Can a new idea for a software project be an intellectual property?

    - by Wesley Khan
    I have to do my final year project and I am going to do some kind of stuff that no one has yet attempted to do, though the completion of the project involves some things that have already been done but I am extending those ideas to do something that no one has yet done. In simple words I have an idea that needs combination of two ideas plus something from my own. Can I claim this idea to be an intellectual property of mine so that no one else attempts to do it while I am doing the project?If Anybody does it after my project, will he need a license from me?

    Read the article

  • Modern.IE VM license

    - by Thomas W.
    Microsoft provides some VMs for testing purposes (advertised on StackOverflow) and I'm trying to understand the license terms. The one I don't really understand is 1.b. You may use the software for testing purposes only. You may not use the software for commercial purposes. My thoughts: a) Testing a website in several browsers on several different virtual machines seems a quite professional approach. I hardly believe many private developers would do that. Of course they should, but which private developer has the time to do so? b) If that's really only available to private developers, what is the offer to companies doing the same thing? I am missing the advertisement for a paid service. My question as a non-native English speaker: Is testing by a company considered as a commercial purpose? Can I use the VMs within a company for testing or not?

    Read the article

  • Open source license with backlink requirement

    - by KajMagnus
    I'm developing a Javascript library, and I'm thinking about releasing it under an open source license (e.g. GPL, BSD, MIT) — but that requires that websites that use the software link back to my website. Do you know about any such licenses? And how have they formulated the attribution part of the license text? Do you think this BSD-license would do what you think that I want? (I suppose it doesn't :-)) [...] 3. Each website that redistributes this work must include a visible rel=follow link to my-website.example.com, reachable via rel=follow links from each page where the software is being redistributed. (For example, you could have a link back to your homepage, and from your homepage to an About-Us section, which could link to a Credits section) I realize that some companies wouldn't want to use the library because of legal issues with interpreting non-standard licenses (have a look at this answer: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/156859/54906). — After half a year, or perhaps some years, I'd change the license to plain GPL + MIT.

    Read the article

  • How do I correctly sub-license a library that is under the MIT license?

    - by Petah
    How do I correctly sub-license a library that is under the MIT license. I am using and extending the library. The MIT license states that I am free to sub-license the library. Can I simply state: <Software library> is copyright <original author> and licensed under the MIT license. <orignal license> Extensions to <Software library> are copyright <me> and licensed under the GPL license, or commercial license if applicable. <GPL, or commercial license>

    Read the article

  • How did craigspro license Craigslist content? [closed]

    - by Joshua Frank
    There's an app called craigspro that provides a much better interface to Craigslist on mobile devices. They claim that the app is Officially Licensed by Craigslist, but I thought Craigslist never licensed their content, and the only thing I can find on the subject in the terms of use is this: Any copying, aggregation, display, distribution, performance or derivative use of craigslist or any content posted on craigslist whether done directly or through intermediaries (including but not limited to by means of spiders, robots, crawlers, scrapers, framing, iframes or RSS feeds) is prohibited. As a limited exception, general purpose Internet search engines and noncommercial public archives will be entitled to access craigslist without individual written agreements executed with CL that specifically authorize an exception to this prohibition if ... Does anyone know how do get a "written agreement" with Craigslist, and roughly what their terms would be? Do they charge a fee, or just check that you're not evil? I'll try next with Craigslist directly, but I'd like to get a sense of the landscape before stumbling in.

    Read the article

  • Pursuing violators of software license/copyright

    - by Dmitry Brant
    I've recently discovered a seller on eBay who is selling CDs with my (trialware) software on it. The seller is clearly trying to pass the software off as his own; he's copied all the verbiage from my software's website, except its actual name. This seller also sells a whole bunch of other CDs with free software for which he's misrepresenting authorship. For example, this listing contains screen shots that are obviously of the free program InfraRecorder. However, the name InfraRecorder or its authors aren't mentioned anywhere. Before I splurge on official legal assistance, does the community have any recommendations or past experiences with these kinds of matters? What's the best way to proceed, and at the very least, have the eBay listings taken down? Is it possible to reclaim the earnings from the sales of these CDs (not just for me, but for the other authors of the free software that this person is selling)? I realize that GPL'd software doesn't have any restrictions on "selling" the software, but this person has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the software's authorship, which is surely a violation of the license. (My software is not GPL; it's a custom license, and it does not permit redistribution of any kind without permission)

    Read the article

  • Can AfferoGPLv3 code be used in GPLv3 code?

    - by Karel Bílek
    Can software with AGPLv3 license be used with GPLv3 project? Can the resulting project be GPLv3, or must it have the special requirements of AGPLv3? I am not very smart from clause 13 of GLPv3 that mentions AGPLv3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such. Must the resulting, combined work be AGPLv3 or not?

    Read the article

  • Do you think asking to sign contributor license agreement for a open source project creates a resistance for contributors?

    - by Appu
    I am working on a open-source project which is backed by an organization. Organization pays a team to make this open-source project. This project will be licensed with GPLv3. We are debating on having a CLA for contributors. Do you think mandating a CLA will reduce the number of contributors? I have observed that people have no issues in signing a CLA when the project is really popular. So do you think CLA will create a resistance to contribute?

    Read the article

  • What are the legal considerations when forking a BSD-licensed project?

    - by Thomas Owens
    I'm interested in forking a project released under a two-clause BSD license: Copyright (c) 2010 {copyright holder} All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer at the end. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. (2) Neither the name of {copyright holder} nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. DISCLAIMER THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I've never forked a project before, but this project is very similar to something that I need/want. However, I'm not sure how far I'll get, so my plan is to pull the latest from their repository and start working. Maybe, eventually, I'll get it to where I want it, and be able to release it. Is this the right approach? How, exactly, does this impact forking of the project? How do I track who owns what components or sections (what's copyright me, what's copyright the original creators, once I start stomping over their code base)? Can I fork this project? What must I do prior to releasing, and when/if I decide to release the software derived from this BSD-licensed work?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >