Search Results

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

Page 27/175 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • How to make a license apply to a whole library?

    - by Yannbane
    I'm creating a standard library for a programming language, and I'd like to license each and every single class or function in there under the MIT license, so they're completely FOSS. All of the files reside in a single directory. Would it be enough to put a LICENSE.txt file in the same directory, containing the MIT license? Do I need to say that the following license applies to all features of the library, or is the library itself considered to be a program?

    Read the article

  • Any legal issue in developing app similar to others?

    - by demotics2002
    There is a game I want to develop for mobile devices e.g. cellphone/tablet. I have been looking for this game and couldn't find it so I decide to just do it on my own. But I'm worried that there will be legal issues. I'm sorry but I do not know what is the process in doing this. I noticed for example the game Bejeweled Blitz. If I develop something similar, do I have to contact the developer and ask for permission if I develop a game with similar rules but use shapes rather than jewels? The original game exists only on Windows for free. If I develop the game, exactly similar rules but different display, am I allowed to sell it? Thanks...

    Read the article

  • Software license restricting commercial usage like CC BY-NC-SA

    - by Nick
    I want to distribute my software under license like Creative Commons Attribution - Non commercial - Share Alike license, i.e. Redistribution of source code and binaries is freely. Modified version of program have to be distributed under the same license. Attribution to original project should be supplied to. Restrict any kind of commercial usage. However CC does not recommend to use their licenses for software. Is there this kind of software license I could apply? Better if public license, but as far as I know US laws says that only EULA could restrict usage of received copy?

    Read the article

  • Using Domain name in EULA of a software rather than my name in the Licensor field

    - by user17330
    I intend to sell a software solution.I have already registered a domain but i dont have a registered company.Can i use my website/domain name eg:myproduct.com for the licensor field in the EULA rather than using myname.I will renew my domain yearly is there a problem with this.Do you know any software companies that work like this.Im confused about the users point of view will they find it a bit different. Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • Did Oracle make public any plans to charge for JDK in the near future? [closed]

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I recently read an article: Twelve Disaster Scenarios Which Could Damage the Technology Industry which mentioned among other the possible "disaster scenarios" also: Oracle starts charging for the JDK, giving the following as argument: Oracle could start requiring license fees for the JDK from everyone but desktop users who haven't uninstalled the Java plug-in for some reason. This would burn down half the Java server-side market, but allow Oracle to fully monetize its acquisitions and investments. [...] Oracle tends to destroy markets to create products it can fully monetize. Even if you're not a Java developer, this would have a ripple effect throughout the market. [...] I actually haven't figured out why Larry hasn't decided Java should go this route yet. Some version of this scenario is actually in my company's statement of risks. I know guessing for the future is impossible, and speculating about that would be endless so I will try to frame my question in an objective answarable way: Did Oracle or someone from Oracle under anonymity, make public, or hinted, leaked to the public such a possibility or the above is plain journalistic speculation? I am unable to find the answer myself with Google generating a lot of noise by searching JDK.

    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

  • LGPL License in commercial application

    - by Jacob
    I have searched around but I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer on my questions that I understand. I want to use the Xuggler library in my application, which is licensed either GPL or LGPL depending on whether I compile it myself. I don't intend to edit the library If I compile it myself and thus get a LGPL version of the library, can I use it in a commercial application without having to distribute the source code of my application? Furthermore, do I have to give my application the LGPL license as well? What other problems might using this library give me?

    Read the article

  • Most appropriate OSS license for infrastructure code

    - by Richard Szalay
    I'm looking into potentially releasing some infrastructure code (related to automated builds and deployments) as OSS and I'm curious about how the various OSS licenses effect it. Specifically, LGPL prevents the code itself (part/whole) being modified into a commercial product (which is what I'm after), but allows it to be "linked to" in the creation of commercial products (also ok). How does the "linked to" clause relate to infrastructure code, which is not deployed with the product itself? Would the application still be required to provide "appropriate legal notices" (which I'm not fussed over)? Would I be better off looking at the Eclipse Public License?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to check if redistributed code has been altered?

    - by onlineapplab.com
    I would like to redistribute my app (PHP) in a way that the user gets the front end (presentation) layer which is using the API on my server through a web service. I want the user to be able to alter his part of the app but at the same time exclude such altered app from the normal support and offer support on pay by the hour basis. Is there a way to check if the source code was altered? Only solution I can think of would be to get check sums of all the files then send it through my API and compare them with the original app. Is there any more secure way to do it so it would be harder for the user to break such protection?

    Read the article

  • How do you track third-party software licenses?

    - by emddudley
    How do you track licenses for third-party libraries that you use in your software? How did you vet the licenses? Sometimes licenses change or libraries switch licenses--how do you stay up to date? At the moment I've got an Excel spreadsheet with worksheets for third-party software, licenses, and the projects we use them on (organized like a relational database). It seems to work OK, but I think it will go out-of-date pretty quickly.

    Read the article

  • MIT and copyright

    - by Petah
    I am contributing to a library that is licensed under the MIT license. In the license and in each class file it has a comment at the top saying: Copyright (c) 2011 Joe Bloggs <[email protected]> I assume that he owns the copyright to the file, and can change the license of that file as he sees fit. If I contribute to the library with a new class entirely write by me, can I claim copyright of that file. And put: Copyright (c) 2011 Petah Piper <[email protected]> at the top?

    Read the article

  • How to monetize and/or protect framework rights?

    - by Arthur Wulf White
    I made a game engine/framerwork for ActionScript 3 that allows very efficient and flexible level design for Platformers, Tower Defense game, RPG's, RTS and racing games. The algorithms I used are new and are not available in any other level editor I've seen. What are the best ways to benefit myself and others with my new framework? It is written for ActionScript 3 so unless I translate it to C# I'm guessing it will be decompiled and used by others. I want to have some lisence, allowing me to share the framework and still benefit from it. Any advice would be appreciated. This issue has been on my mind a lot this year. I am hoping to find a solution that will bring me some relief.

    Read the article

  • What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?

    - by Yannbane
    To quote the license itself: Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I am not exactly sure what the bold part implies. Lets say that I'm creating some library, and I license it under the MIT license. Someone decides to fork that library and to create a closed-source, commercial version. According to the license, he should be free to do that. However, what does he additionally need to do under those terms? Credit me as the creator? I guess the "above copyright notice" refers to the "Copyright (C) [..." part, but, wouldn't that list me as the author of his code (although I technically typed out the code)? And wouldn't including the "permission notice" in what is now his library practically license it under the same conditions that I licensed my own library in? Or, am I interpreting this incorrectly? Does that refer to my obligations to include the copyright and the permission notice?

    Read the article

  • What am I allowed to do programmatically with pictures that have a Creative Commons "don't modify" license

    - by nist
    I'm working on a project that uses some icons that are under a Creative Commons license (ND) that forbids modification of the picture. What can I do with this icons as a programmer? Can I modify the looks of the image in the program as long as I don't change anything in the file that contains the icon? Have I modified the image if I put a colored transparent layer over it so the color of the icon changes?

    Read the article

  • Submitting software to a competition, it becomes their property?

    - by myrkos
    So I'm about to submit a game to a competition, but as I looked through the rules a chunk grabbed my attention: All Entries become the sole and exclusive property of Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned. Sponsor shall own all right, title and interest in and to each Entry, including without limitation all results and proceeds thereof and all elements or constituent parts of Entry (including without limitation the Mobile App, the Design Documents, the Video Trailer, the Playable and all illustrations, logos, mechanicals, renderings, characters, graphics, designs, layouts or other material therein) and all copyrights and renewals and extensions of copyrights therein and thereto. Without limitation of the foregoing, each Eligible Entrant shall and hereby does absolutely and irrevocably assign and transfer all of his or her right, title and interest in his or her Entry to Sponsor, and Sponsor shall have the right and may authorize others to use, copy, sublicense, transmit, modify, manipulate, publish, delete, reproduce, perform, distribute, display and otherwise exploit the Entry (and to create and exploit derivative works thereof) in any manner, including without limitation to embody the Entry, in whole or in part, in apps and other works of any kind or nature created, developed, published or distributed by Sponsor and to and register as a trademark in any country in Sponsor’s name any component of the Entry, without such Eligible Entrant reserving any rights or claims with respect thereto. Sponsor shall have the exclusive right, in perpetuity, throughout the Territory to change, adapt, modify, use, combine with other material and otherwise exploit the Entry in all media now known or hereafter devised and in any manner, in its sole and absolute discretion, without the need for any payment or credit to Entrant. So the game will become the sponsor's property; however, they don't ask for source code. So will I still own the rights to the source code, whatever that means? And if it doesn't win said competition, will I be able to publish it myself without their trademarks? I am very new to software legality stuff, so I would appreciate any clarification. Since there's a possibility I won't even own the source, is it possible to make the game core engine open source software with a not-very-restrictive license and include that in the project, so I at least still own the game engine? Or does it not work that way?

    Read the article

  • Author's work and copyright. in UI design

    - by c-smile
    Typical situation in UI design: you do design of some UI and, say, came up with some bright new idea like "ribbon" or "kinetic scroll past end". What would be the strategy about such thing? Register patent, don't like it, but anyway would like to ask: how long it takes to do all this stuff and how much it will cost in average? If to forget about patents, will the idea have something like "prior art" status or some such if someone will try to patent this in future? All this about project / product published by solo developer.

    Read the article

  • Selling an open source project: some issues

    - by Sander
    I am the creator / main developer of a small sized open source (PHP) project (GPL3). Currently there is a development team of 3 people (me included). This team has been quite active for some time, but since almost 2 years not much has happened. I myself have decided I want to stop working on the project, but I can't just leave the project because I care about it and I know if I abandon it, it will just be a matter of time before the project completely dies. At this moment, there are still some users and the project is only slightly out-of-date. So I'm thinking about selling the whole project. Of course I'd need to get consent of the other developers, but for now I'm assuming that's not a big problem. So at this moment I have 2 questions: 1) If the project would be sold to a commercial party, would it be possible for them to convert the project to closed source? I would prefer to sell the project to a company/organization that would continue the development under an open source license. 2) Does anyone have any tips to find interested parties? I don't know if I just want to put up a "For Sale" sign on the website of the project. Maybe someone has experience with a comparable situation. Ok guys, thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Incorporating GPL Code in my Open Source Project

    - by rutherford
    I have downloaded a currently inactive GPL project with a view to updating it and releasing the completed codebase as open source. I'm not really a fan of GPL though and would rather licence my project under BSD. What are my options? Is it just a case of keeping any existing non-touched code under the GPL and any updated stuff can be BSD (messy)? The source will essentially be the same codebase i.e. there is no logical separation between the two and they certainly can't be split into anything resembling different libraries. Are my only realistic options to either GPL the whole thing or seek the original author's permission to release everthing under BSD?

    Read the article

  • Using source code with no license

    - by nathansizemore
    I've recently come across a publicly viewable project on Github that has no license associated with it. In this repo, there is a file with the logic and most of the code needed to work as a piece of a project I am working on. Not verbatim, but about 60% of it I'd like to use with various modifications. Once my code base is a little bit more stable, I plan to release what I've done under the WTFPL License. I've emailed the repo owner, and so far have not gotten a reply. I know I have the rights to fork the repo, but if I release a stripped down and modified version of the other project's file with mine, under the WTFPL, am I infringing on copyrights? Per Github's Terms of Service, by submitted a project on Github and making it viewable to the public, you are allowing other users to see and fork your project. Doesn't say anything about modifying, distributing, or using the fork. And at what point of modification to the original does it become owned by me?

    Read the article

  • Software Licencing [closed]

    - by Craig
    A colleague of mine wanted a means to do something, so it was suggested that I write some software to do this. The software has turned into more than the original specification and is now something rather complex, however it is not fully functional still. My colleague has not paid me anything so far and I am unwilling to continue writing the software until some faith has been reciprocated in my direction, as I have put a lot of effort into writing the software. I am also unwilling to finish the software as I do not want to give away a huge chunk of my time and effort away as free, neither do I want to be under compensated for my efforts. Some concerns I have. If I finish the software, what if the client doesn't pay me anything or pays too little, or what if I write the software to a usable level, but not complete and the client pays me a too little. I have lost my motivation to finish the software, as more and more specifications have been added to the software and I have developed a substantially complex piece of software and been effectively paid nothing. To finish the software, I need motivation, money would do this, however the client doesn't want to pay for something that isn't complete, yet keeps adding more requirements. I seem to be in a catch 22 with this, as I have developed some software on faith and have had no faith reciprocated in my direction. I'm really not sure how to get some payment from the client or on how to develop a licencing model so that I get some money from the client and development resumes.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Public License Question

    - by ryanzec
    Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): 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. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

    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

  • 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

  • My new anti-patent BSD-based license: necessary and effective? [closed]

    - by paperjam
    I am writing multimedia software in a domain that is rife with software patents. I want to open source my software but only for the benefit of those who don't play the patent game, that is enthusiasts, small companies, research projects, etc. The idea is, if my code would infringe a software patent somewhere and a company pays to license that patent, they then lose the right to use and distribute my software. Now I detest license proliferation as much as anyone but I can't find an existing OSI approved license that does this. The GPL comes close, but it only restricts distribution, not use. I want to stop someone using my software should they obtain a patent license to do so. Does another license do this job? Is the wording below unambiguous? - I don't want a legal opinion, just whether it would be interpreted as I intend. Copyright (c) <year>, <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: [ three standard new-BSD conditions not shown here] * No patents are licensed from any third party in respect of redistribution or use of this software or its derivatives unless the patent license is arranged to permit free use and distribution by all. THIS SOFTWARE IS... [standard BSD disclaimer not shown here]

    Read the article

  • Can I require a large donation ($499) in order for a company to receive an extended version of my open source project? [closed]

    - by Damian
    I want to make my project open source but some of its more advanced features are targeted to companies so I would like to require a donation before I send the source code to the donating company. It will be something like that: "If you want to use the extended features of XXXXXXX, please make a donation of $499 and you will receive the source code and the jar with the extended features. You will also receive personalized support by email." Is it legal and acceptable to do something like that? Can the companies donate an amount like that to an open source project? I mean, is it easy for them in terms of their accounting, tax, etc. to donate $499 dollars to an open source project. I know it is not a matter whether they will have money or not but more of a paying procedure matter.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >