Search Results

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

Page 28/175 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

• I created a program based on an LGPL project, and I'm not allowed to publish the source code

  - by Dave

  I thought LGPL was a permissive license, just like MIT, BSD or Apache. But today I read, that only linking to LGPL (libraries etc) is allowed from closed-source code - other than that, it's copyleft - so I have to publish code that is based on an LGPL program. I created a program for my employer that is based on an LGPL program, but has considerable modifications to it. Of course, I am not allowed to put that modified source code out there. At the same time, I have to, if I distribute it (right?). So I wonder whether there is a workaround to this, so I can keep this closed-source (I wish I could publish the source) - any suggestions? My idea: can I put most functions of the original LGPL app into an external library, write the core executable from scratch, but refer back to the library for all functions that I haven't modified? Currently, everything is in a .jar file (it's Java/Swing). if you think my idea is legally/technically feasible - how much effort would it be to seperate what I wrote and what the original is? I'm not the most java savvy.

  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

• how to contribute the same source code to two separate open-source projects?

  - by Jason S

  Let's say there are two similar open source projects A and B, both licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0. I would like to contribute an improvement to both projects (because I don't know which one is administered better, and I would like to see my improvement show up in both). Is there a way I can contribute this improvement to both projects in a simple way? (One obvious approach is to start an open source project C licensed under Apache 2.0, but that's a headache for various reasons; I don't want to maintain a project myself)

  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

• Can I distribute a software with the following permission notice

  - by Parham

  I've recently written a piece of software (without any other contributors) for a company which I part own. I was wondering if I could distribute it with the following permission notice, which is a modified version of the MIT License. Are there any obvious risks if I do distribute with this licence and does it give me the right to reuse the code in other projects? Permission is hereby granted, to any person within CompanyName (the "Company") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, excluding any third party libraries (the "Software"), to deal with the Software, with limitations restricted to use, copy, modify and merge, the Software may not be published, distributed, sublicensed and/or sold without the explicit permission from AuthorName (the "Author"). This notice doesn't apply to sections of the Software where copyright is held by any persons other than the Author. The Author remains the owner of the Software and may 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. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

  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

• Understanding the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)

  - by J.r. Hounddog

  I'm looking at using a few open source products in a commercial software application I'm working on. One of them is licensed under MIT, which I understand as allowing commercial software linking. However, the other open source product is licensed under MS-PL but I don't understand if that license is fully compatible with commercial software. So the question is, can I use MS-PL licensed OSS in a commercial/proprietary/for-sale application? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Making money from a custom built interpreter?

  - by annoying_squid

  I have been making considerable progress lately on building an interpreter. I am building it from NASM assembly code (for the core engine) and C (cl.exe the Microsoft compiler for the parser). I really don't have a lot of time but I have a lot of good ideas on how to build this so it appeals to a certain niche market. I'd love to finish this but I need to face reality here ... unless I can make some good monetary return on my investment, there is not a lot of time for me to invest. So I ask the following questions to anyone out there, especially those who have experience in monetizing their programs: 1) How easy is it for a programmer to make good money from one design? (I know this is vague but it will be interesting to hear from those who have experience or know of others' experiences). 2) What are the biggest obstacles to making money from a programming design? 3) For the parser, I am using the Microsoft compiler (no IDE) I got from visual express, so will this be an issue? Will I have to pay royalties or a license fee? 4) As far as I know NASM is a 2-clause BSD licensed application. So this should allow me to use NASM for commericial development unless I am missing something? It's good to know these things before launching into the meat and potatoes of the project.

  Read the article

• Anti Cloud Open Source License

  - by Steve

  I'm working on a browser based open source monitoring project that I want to be free to the community. What I'm worried about is someone taking the project, renaming it, deploying it in the cloud and start charging people who don't even know my project exists. I know I maybe shouldn't mind, but it just sticks in my throat a bit if someone took a free ride like that and contributed nothing back. Is there any common open source license that can prevent this. I know GPL or AGPL don't.

  Read the article

• Is it OK to use sample code from blogs, GitHub, etc... in commercial applications?

  - by eterps

  When searching the web for a solution to a particular problem, I often find a perfect solution posted on someone's blog, or in a public repository (GitHub, Google Code). Most of the time, the code has no copyright information, nor does the author mention any sort of attribution rules. I'm pretty sure short snippets are fine, but what if I copy a handful of classes verbatim (again, no copyright notices, TOS, attribution requests, etc...)? Am I under any legal obligation to the original author?

  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 a cheaper non-express non-student, non-msdn version of Visual Studio 2010 that supports plugins in the US than the $710 Professional Edition?

  - by Justin Dearing

  I've never actually purchased a copy of Visual Studio myself. SharpDevelop and Express edition have always been good enough for my personal use, and my employers always furnished me with the IDEs I needed to serve them. However, I'm thinking of actually paying for a copy for my personal laptop. I need this mainly so I can open solutions that contain web projects. So my question is: Is there an edition cheaper than the $710 Pro edition on Amazon that will do what I need: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-C5E-00521-Visual-Studio-Professional/dp/B0038KTO8S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287456230&sr=8-2 ? What I need is defined as: Open up a solution with C#, Web App, VB.NET, and Web Projects. Install addins like resharper, testdriven.net, etc, SCM plugins, etc. Some level of db project support. At least to be able to open a dbproj. I only need that for SCM hooks. SSMS and SQLCMD are good enough for actually editing databases. Ability to install F#, IronPython, IronRuby etc. Now naturally I'm a fairly intelligent resourceful person so I realize I can get Visual Studio in a questionable manner. Thats not what I'm looking to do. I want a legal copy, I don't want a student copy, or an MSDN copy. I want a real copy, I just want to make sure I get the cheapest edition that serves my needs.

  Read the article

• Picking the right license

  - by nightcracker

  Hey, I have some trouble with picking the right license for my works. I have a few requirements: Not copyleft like the GNU (L)GPL and allows for redistribution under other licenses Allows other people to redistribute your (modified) work but prevents that other people freely make money off my work (they need to ask/buy a commercial license if they want to) Compatible with the GNU (L)GPL Not responsible for any damage caused by my work Now, I wrote my own little license based on the BSD and CC Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licenses, but I am not sure if it will hold in court. Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved. Redistribution of this work, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All redistributions must attribute <copyright holder> as the original author or licensor of this work (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). 2. All redistributions must be for non-commercial purposes and free of charge unless specific written permission by <copyright holder> is given. This work is provided by <copyright holder> "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed. <copyright holder> is not liable for any damage arising in any way out of the use of this work. Now, you could help me by either: Point me to an existing license which is satisfies my requirements Confirm that my license has no major flaws and most likely would hold in court Thanks!

  Read the article

• Does NASA license the software that it develops?

  - by Abe

  NASA provides a visualization software called Panoply. There is a Credits and Acknowledgments page that acknowledges and lists the licenses of software dependencies, but provides no information about its own license. I have looked at other software produced by NASA, including the source code for GISS and can not find any information about a licence. The closest information that I can find is in the FAQ for the global climate model EdGCM Global that says the code is in the "public domain" is it standard practice at NASA to release code into the public domain? are there exceptions? Can I assume that Panoply is public domain and can be used without restriction other than than those imposed by licenses of software dependencies? Is the absence of specific permission to reuse the code a concern (this issue was raised in the answer to a separate question) How common is this practice across government agencies?

  Read the article

• Unicode license

  - by Eric Grange

  Unicode Terms of use (http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html) state that any software that uses their data files (or a modification of it) should carry the Unicode license references. It seems to me that most Unicode libraries have functions to check if a character is a digit, a letter, a symbol, etc. ans so will contain a modification of the Unicode Data Files (usually in the form of tables). Does that mean the license applies and all applications that use such Unicode libraries should carry the license? I've checked around, and it appears very few Unicode software do carry the license, though arguable most of those that didn't carry the license were from companies that were members of the Unicode consortium (do they get license exemption?). Some (f.i. Mozilla) are only "Liaison Members", and while their software do not carry the license (AFAICT), they do obviously rely on data derived from those data files. Is Mozilla in breach of the license? Should we carry the license in all apps that include any form of advanced Unicode support? (ie. are bound to rely on the Unicode data files) Or is there some form of broad exemption? (since very very few software out there carries the license)

  Read the article

• Automatic generate code: "derived work"?

  - by Peregring-lk

  For example, I've GPL software. I'm the author of this GPL software. This GPL software has, between its code, Doxygen comments. These Doxygen comments are written to generate a CC-BY-SA html page, in order to upload this generated documentation in my project website under CC-BY-SA license. But, the Doxygen documentation output is a "derivate work"? After all, this documentation is based on my GPL source code. In this case, the documentation must be GPL. But, I want the documentation is CC-BY-SA, because it is documentation. GFDL doesn't help. GPL code can't become GFDL (the opposite yes). If this output is really a derivate work, I think, creates a strange situation, because, if I distribute my work, the recipient users can't legally distribute the generated documentation: while with my work I can do I want, the users don't, thus, they have to distribute any derivated work with the same license I offer them. What is the solution?

  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

• Is there a precedent for the license on a compiler restricting the kind of development you can use it for?

  - by Jim McKeeth

  It was recently let slip that the new EULA for Delphi XE3 will prohibit Client Server development with the Professional edition without the additional purchase of a Client Server license pack. This is not to say the Professional version will lack the features, but the license will specifically prohibit the developer from using the compiler for a specific class of development, even with 3rd party or home grown solutions. So my question is if there is a precedent of a compiler or similar creative tool prohibiting the class of work you can use it for. Specifically a commercially licensed "professional" tool like Delphi XE3. Also, would such a restriction be legally enforceable? I know there have been educational edition or starter edition tools in the past that have restricted their use for commercial purposes, but those were not sold as "professional" tools. Also I know that a lot of computing software and equipment will have a disclaimer that it is not for use in "life support equipment" or "nuclear power" but that is more of avoiding liability than prohibiting activity. Seems like I recall Microsoft putting a restriction in FrontPage that you couldn't use it to create a web site that reflected poorly on Microsoft, but they pulled that restriction before it could be tested legally.

  Read the article

• Options for Opensource license?

  - by foodil

  I am choosing a license for my open source software and I've learned about GPL, EBMS and BSD. GPL seems to be most popular one. The problems are: Would anybody kindly name a few popular opensource licenses? Since I do not see any EBMS BSD license is popular. Are there any chart or table that have list out the advantages/disadvantages of using anyone? Why is the GPL always the license developers choose from, what are its benefits? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Alternatives to the GPL

  - by Bane

  I made a game, and I am currently making a game engine. I want them both to be completely free and open source. What license should I choose? I was reading a bit on GPL, but that seems to be more suited for system code and libraries, AFAIK, as it doesn't permit the use of code for proprietorial software - which, in turn, implies that the code can be used in the first place. I can see that, obviously, game engines can be considered libraries, and therefor be used, but what about game code? Is there an alternative to GPL?

  Read the article

• License for library developed with commercial program

  - by Overv

  I'm developing a commercial application that largely depends on the functionality of a library that will be developed with it. I'd like to open-source this library, because it offers functionality that is not found elsewhere and can be useful in other applications. However, I will also use it in my own commercial application. I don't want to publish the source of the main application, but it is definitely not a derived work (think of calculator app using GPL licensed library to calculate sine). And if someone else commercially uses the library, I want to require them to publish any changes made. Is the GPL license suitable for this or is LGPL perhaps what I need?

  Read the article

• GPL/LGPL/MPL non-code content license

  - by user1103142

  I want to use a dictionary (basically a text file, and no code) that is included with an open office spell checking plug-in. The plug-in is under the tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL which I don't understand. is that legal? If it is illegal, what if I wrote a script that uses the said open office plug-in to generate the dictionary (assuming it's technically possible, the script will generate all possible letter permutations, passes it to the plug-in and saves the correct ones) ? I will be using the dictionary in a closed source commercial application. The dictionary is in a language that has very little resources online, and short of making my own dictionary, there aren't any alternatives. Clarification: The script idea I mentioned above, isn't a weird technique, I would generate a document with all possible words and use open office with the plug-in installed to show spelling mistakes and remove them, isn't this the intended use of the plug-in (spell checking)?

  Read the article

• Implications of Cisco open-sourcing H.264? [on hold]

  - by Suman

  Cisco has announced that it will license and open-source the H.264 video codec. As a result of this, Firefox will be embedding H.264 playback functionality in future versions of Firefox. What implications, if any, will this have for programmers building software and/or hardware dealing with video (and WebRTC in particular)? (And if programmers.SE isn't the right forum, please feel free to suggest a better option.)

  Read the article

• External modules security

  - by Jlouro

  I am developing some external modules for an application. These modules are BPL files and if present in the application folder the application loads them and uses whatever is available inside. How can I prevent the sharing of these modules by my clients? I need them to be authorized to use the modules (module by module). To have some sort of license, registration of the module, what is the best method? Thanks

  Read the article

• Can you change a license once you pick one?

  - by Adam

  I am working on a product that I don't feel is completely ready but I have a set of users that are very interested in using it now as "alpha" testers. I would like to give them the product now for free as "alpha" testers, but I would like to later license the software. Is this possible? Can anyone point me to any links/books/articles/etc? Thanks. EDIT: Due to the lack of my clarity and the reponses to the question I thought I should add this statement. I haven't decided if I am going to close-source or open-source this project yet. The user base that wants to get their hands on it now has kind of surprised me and I was concerned about what my options are as far as being able to give it to them now as open-source and later change to closed-source, or even vice versa. Thanks to everyone who has answered and commented. I appreciate it the insights.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >