Search Results

Search found 1034 results on 42 pages for 'legal'.

Page 3/42 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Are there any legal issues while extracting content from RSS feeds? [closed]

    - by Kalinga
    I would like to know whether these free SMS alert sites such as My Today SMS, Alertix pay for the sites such as religate, oneindia.in e.t.c, Or they just mention in their website that this service powered by Oneindia. What I would like to know is whether these people pay any royalty/monthly/annual fee for these religate/oneindia, by which I also mean: Are there any legal issues attached to extracting data from the RSS feeds these websites provide for services like free SMS alerts?

    Read the article

  • Can I legally make a free clone of a game and use the same name? [closed]

    - by BlueMonkMN
    I gather from Is it legally possible to make a clone of the game? and How closely can a game resemble another game without legal problems that I should not try to profit from a clone if it is using the same assets, and, I presume, the same name. My question is whether it's legal to make a game like "Set" or "Catch Phrase", using the same name, and release it for free. What would I be risking if I did so -- just a take down notice, or could there be financial risk too? Edit: I guess my real question is whether the legal freedom is greater for a free game than one that is trying to make a profit. I just want a version of the game I can play remotely. Edit 2: I don't understand why this is being considered off-topic. I read the FAQ and it says it'S OK to ask questions about project management, which includes Publishing. And naming a game is a key aspect to publishing. That's what my question is about - choosing a legal name for my game with the consideration that I might post/publish it.

    Read the article

  • Is there a version of Debian-Lenny that is legal for export from the US?

    - by molecules
    I wanted to bundle my application in a Debian-Lenny Virtual Machine so others could download it and run it without having to configure anything. However, I don't want to have to worry about US legal issues. Many of the packages in a default Debian installation include encryption algorithms. Are all default versions export-safe?    If not, is there an export-safe version?       If not, is there an easy way to make one?

    Read the article

  • Ill be Speaking at ILTAs SharePoint for Legal Symposium on June 16th 2010

    Ill be speaking at the International Legal Technology Associations SharePoint for Legal Symposium on June 16th 2010 at Microsofts offices in Downers Grove, IL.  My talk will be about Building Public-Facing Websites with SharePoint 2010.  SharePoint has quickly become a popular platform for companies to build their public-facing websites on.  Ill go over the new features in SharePoint 2010 specific to web content management, and also discuss some best practices and lessons learned from our experience building internet sites with SharePoint. The SharePoint for Legal Symposium is a two-day event with talks covering a variety of other topics such as: Enterprise Search Using SharePoint 2010 and FAST SharePoint as a Document Management System Content Classification in SharePoint 2010: Taxonomies, Folksonomies and More Im very interested in hearing from firms who have been testing SharePoint 2010 prior to RTM, particularly how they are taking advantage of the new features in SharePoint 2010, e.g. Managed Metadata. Ive made my presentation available in advance, check it out on SlideShare: ILTA Presentation - Building Public-Facing Websites with SharePoint 2010 View more presentations from gdurzi. Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Do I need to contact a lawyer to report a GPL violation in software distributed on Apple's App Store?

    - by Rinzwind
    Some company is selling software through Apple's App Store which uses portions of code that I released publicly under the GPL. The company is violating the licensing terms in two ways, by (1) not preserving my copyright statement, and not releasing their code under the GPL license and (2) by distributing my GPL-licensed code through Apple's App Store. (The Free Software Foundation has made clear that the terms of the GPL and those of the App Store are incompatible.) I want to report this to Apple, and ask that they take appropriate action. I have tried mailing them to ask for more information about the reporting process, and have received the automated reply quoted below. The last point in the list of things one needs to provide, the “a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury,” sounds as if they mean some kind of specific legal document. I'm not sure. Does this mean I need to contact a lawyer just to file the report? I'd like to avoid going through that hassle if at all possible. (Besides an answer to this specific question, I'd welcome comments and experience reports from anyone who has already had to deal with a GPL violation on Apple's App Store.) Thank you for contacting Apple's Copyright Agent. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes infringement on Apple’s Web site, please provide the following information: an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site; your address, telephone number, and email address; a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf. For further information, please review Apple's Legal Information & Notices/Claims of Copyright Infringement at: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/claimsofcopyright.html To expedite the processing of your claim regarding any alleged intellectual property issues related to iTunes (music/music videos, podcasts, TV, Movies), please send a copy of your notice to [email protected] For claims concerning a software application, please send a copy of your notice to [email protected]. Due to the high volume of e-mails we receive, this may be the only reply you receive from [email protected]. Please be assured, however, that Apple's Copyright Agent and/or the iTunes Legal Team will promptly investigate and take appropriate action concerning your report.

    Read the article

  • Is it legal to ask photo ID and credit card copy in the U.S

    - by selim
    I regularly order from online shops around the world and I have not see any case where the company asks for photo ID or credit card copy. Yesterday I make an order from linode.com and my order is on hold because of their "fraud check system". Is it common to ask those info in U.S. where I have never asked such info in here (Istanbul, Turkey). And I already asked what is their motive and legal stand and the reason my order is hold by their fraud system. And I also added whether is because I live in Istanbul, Turkey. Their answer was as following: "We would not be able to disclose specific information related to our fraud system." And I'm asked repeatedly whether I want to cancel my order or not. I dont questioning reputation of linode.com if I think so, I did not make an order. I think asking for photo ID is neither legal nor provide any security.

    Read the article

  • Can I Base My Game on Another Game and Earn Money? [closed]

    - by Neb
    Possible Duplicate: How closely can a game resemble another game without legal problems I want make a game similar to Pocket Tanks but for Android and then sell it. Since I am not directly copying anything from Pocket Tanks, but simply using it to give me ideas, I should be allowed to make it. I don't want to finish making my game and then get into some legal trouble, so I wanted to ask here if its allowed. If this is the wrong place to ask, can you tell me where I could ask this question?

    Read the article

  • Copyrights concerning code snippets and larger amounts of code

    - by JustcallmeDrago
    I am designing a public code repository. Users will be allowed to post and edit whatever amount of code they want, from code snippets to entire multi-file projects. I have a few major legal concerns about this: Not getting sued/shut down - I feel the site would be a much easier target than tracking down an individual user to sue. I have looked around a bit and see links to legal info in the footer of each page is common. What specific things should I do--and what does does a site such as YouTube (which I see copyrighted material on all the time) do--for protection? Citing sources and editing sourced code - If a user wants to post code that isn't theirs, what concerns/safeguards should I have? Will a link suffice, and what do I need further to allow the code to be edited (to improve it for example)? What can happen if a user posts copyrighted code without citing it? Large chunks of code - What legal differences should I look out for as the amount grows? Not having a mess of licenses for the site - I would like to have a single license (like RosettaCode) that keeps things simple for interaction on the site. I want the code to be postable and editable. I have looked into StackOverflow's CreativeCommons license a little and it says that If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. And on RosettaCode: All software found on Rosetta Code should be considered potentially hazardous. Use at your own risk. Be aware that all code on Rosetta Code is under the GNU Free Documentation License, as are any edits made by contributors. See Rosetta Code:Copyrights for details. What other licenses are like this? Commercializing the site - In what ways can I and can't I make money off of a site that contains code like this? All code will be publicly visible. Initial thoughts are having ads or making money by charging for advanced features.

    Read the article

  • "Viral" license that only blocks legal actions of user and developer against each other

    - by Lukasz Zaroda
    I was thinking a lot about software licensing lately, because I would like to do some coding. I'm not an expert in all those licenses, so I came up with my own idea, and before I will put in on paper, I would like to make sure that I didn't reinvent a wheel, so maybe I would be able to use something that exists. Main idea behind my license is to guarantee freedom of use the software, but not "freedom to" (positive) (e.g. freedom to having source code), but "freedom from" (negative) (strictly from legal actions against you). It would be "viral" copyleft license. You would be able to without fear do everything you want with the software (and binaries e.g. reverse engineering), as long as You will include information about author and/or authors, and all derivative works will be distributed with the same license. I'm not interested in anything that would restrict a freedom of company to do something like "tivoization". I'm just trying to accomplish something that would block any legal actions of user and developer, targeted against each other, with the exception of basic attribution. Does exist something like that?

    Read the article

  • SCALE 8x: Free software legal issues

    <b>LWN.net:</b> "But in reality the FLOSS ecosystem relies on a complex legal framework in order to run smoothly and to stand up to proprietary software competition: the various software licenses, contribution agreements, copyright and other "intellectual property" law."

    Read the article

  • Copyright infringement - inside the legal minefield

    <b>New Zealand Herald:</b> "Several weeks ago the Australian high court ruled in favour of Aussie ISP iiNet in a landmark legal battle where AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) argued that iiNet was as guilty as some of its subscribers of online copyright infringement."

    Read the article

  • Keeping it Legal - Privacy Policy & PCI Compliance

    One of the most overlooked aspects of a website are the legal disclaimers such as the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This article is designed to help you put together these important web documents to keep you in compliance with federal law as well as Google (and other Search Engine's) best practices. Privacy Policy The Privacy Policy is extremely important.

    Read the article

  • Legality of using/embedding MP3s?

    - by Pogopuschel
    I am working on a language learning startup. I think that one of the best ways to study is through music. For that purpose I would like to include MP3s on the website, together with related study tools such as appropriate lyrics. Because I want to avoid dead links I would like to host the MP3s directly on my server and stream them to the users. Doing this isn't exactly legal since everyone could download the MP3s. But what if, before accessing a specific song, I displayed a message asking "Do you legally own this song in CD/MP3/... format?" and only if the user clicks "yes" he is allowed to continue and listen. Isn't this how, for example, YouTube gets around legal problems? Does anybody have insight on this? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Is it legal to take sealed .NET framework class source and extend it?

    - by Giedrius
    To be short, I'm giving very specific example, but I'm interested in general situation. There is a FtpWebRequest class in .NET framework and it is missing some of new FTP operations, like MFCT. It is ok in a sense that this operation is still in draft mode, but it is not ok in a sense, that FtpWebRequest is sealed and there's no other way (at least I don't see it) to extend it with this new operation. Easiest way to do it would be take FtpWebRequest class source from .NET reference sources and extend it, in such way will be kept all the consistence in naming, implementation, etc. Question is how much legal it is? I won't sell this class as a product, I can publish my changes on web - nothing to hide here. If it is not legal, can I take this class source from mono and include in native .net project? Did you had similar case and how you solved it? Update: as long as extension method is offered, I'm pasting source from .NET framework which should show that extension methods are not the solution. So there's a property Method, where you can pass FTP command: public override string Method { get { return m_MethodInfo.Method; } set { if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) { throw new ArgumentException(SR.GetString(SR.net_ftp_invalid_method_name), "value"); } if (InUse) { throw new InvalidOperationException(SR.GetString(SR.net_reqsubmitted)); } try { m_MethodInfo = FtpMethodInfo.GetMethodInfo(value); } catch (ArgumentException) { throw new ArgumentException(SR.GetString(SR.net_ftp_unsupported_method), "value"); } } } As you can see there FtpMethodInfo.GetMethodInfo(value) call in setter, which basically validates value against internal enum static array. Update 2: Checked mono implementation and it is not exact replica of native code + it does not implement some of the things.

    Read the article

  • Is an Intranet music streaming server legal?

    - by Jon Smock
    We are a large organization with thousands of users, and we're peaking on our Internet usage. Many of those users are streaming music while they work. We're wondering if providing a music streaming server internally would help on bandwidth. How legal is that? Here are two scenarios: 1) We purchase a body of music legally and stream it internally (I assume this is illegal) 2) We pull music feeds from free, legal, online sources and "rebroadcast" internally (I assume this is legal) We want to save bandwidth and help our users, but we want to do it in an ethical and legal way.

    Read the article

  • GPLv2 - Multiple AI chess engines to bypass GPL

    - by Dogbert
    I have gone through a number of GPL-related questions, the most recent being this one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3248823/legal-question-about-the-gpl-license-net-dlls/3249001#3249001 I'm trying to see how this would work, so bear with me. I have a simple GUI interface for a game of Chess. It essentially can send/receive commands to/from an external chess engine (ie: Tong, Fruit, etc). The application/GUI is similar in nature to XBoard ( http://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/ ), but was independently designed. After going through a number of threads on this topic, it seems that the FSF considers dynamically linking against a GPLv2 library as a derivative work, and that by doing so, the GPLv2 extends to my proprietary code, and I must release the source to my entire project. Other legal precedents indicate the opposite, and that dynamic linking doesn't cause the "viral" effect of the GPL to propagate to my proprietary code. Since there is no official consensus that can give a "hard-and-fast" answer to the dynamic linking question, would this be an acceptable alternative: I build my chess GUI so that it sends/receives the chess engine AI logic as text commands from an external interface library that I write The interface library I wrote itself is then released under the GPL The interface library is only used to communicate via a generic text pipe to external command-line chess engines The chess engine itself would be built as a command-line utility rather than as a library of any sort, and just sends strings in the Universal Chess Interface of Chess Engine Communication Protocol ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Engine_Communication_Protocol ) format. The one "gotcha" is that the interface library should not be specific to one single GPL'ed chess engine, otherwise the entire GUI would be "entirely dependent" on it. So, I just make my interface library so that it is able to connect to any command-line chess engine that uses a specific format, rather than just one unique engine. I could then include pre-built command-line-app versions of any of the chess engines I'm using. Would that sort of approach allow me to do the following: NOT release the source for my UI Release the source of the interface library I built (if necessary) Use one or more chess engines and bundle them as external command-line utilities that ship with a binary version of my UI Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Do licenses matter if there's nobody around to enforce them?

    - by Corey
    Suppose that the original creators can't (or won't) enforce a license on their software/code, but that work is still popular. I guess if you want to visualize it, I'll throw out a convoluted hypothetical: Imagine a very small group of developers that released a code project under an open-source license. The repository was hosted on their servers. However, the everybody on the immediate development team passed away in a tragic accident or something. Their servers shut down after this happened. The project had a fairly large user base, and so others began to host the last revision on their own servers for others to download. (Yes, I have an active imagination) Does abiding by the license simply become a matter of morality by its users, or can there still exist a legal penalty when there is no one user or group to enforce it? Could anything be done if an unscrupulous user decided to branch off the project and use it under a different license? I am not looking for legal advice -- I am simply curious about how software licenses work. I tend to think of strange situations and wonder what would happen in those scenarios.

    Read the article

  • When can I publish a software tool written at work?

    - by AlexMA
    I'm working on a software problem at work that is fairly generic, but I can't find a library I like to solve it, so I'm considering writing one myself (at least a bare-bones version). I'll be writing some if not all of the 1.0 version at work, since I need it for the project. If turns out well I might want to bring the work home and polish it up just for fun, and maybe release it as an open-source project. However, I'm concerned that if I wrote the 1.0 version at work I may not be allowed to do this from a legal sense. Obviously I could ask my boss (who probably won't care), but I'm curious how other programmers have dealt with this issue and where the law stands here. My one sentence question is, When is it okay (legally/ethically) to open-source a software tool originally written by you for work at work? What if you have expanded the original source significantly during off-hours? Follow-up: Suppose I write the whole thing at home on my time then simply use it at work, does that change things drastically? Follow-up 2: Note that I'm not trying to rip off my employer (I understand that they're paying me to build products that they own)--I'm just wondering if there's a fair way of doing this for all involved... It would be nice if some nonprofit down the road could use my code and save them some time. Also, there's another issue at stake. If I write the library for a very simple, generic thing (like HTML tables in Javascript), does that mean I can never again do so on my own time without putting myself at legal risk (even if it was a whole new fresh rewrite or a segment of a larger project). Am I surrendering my right to write code for this sort of project for the rest of my life (without this company's permission), since the code at work might still be somewhere in my brain influencing me? This seems related to software patents, as a side-note.

    Read the article

  • is it legal to use fontsquirrel.com to create a @font-face kit for a font I have been given?

    - by ongoingworlds
    fontsquirrel.com allows you to upload a font and create a @font-face kit which you can apply to your website and use to display fonts which will display cross-browser (even in IE6!). But what I want to know is, is this legal? I've been supplied the font "Lubalin Graph Std" and told to use this for headers on the website I'm creating. I can upload the font file to fontsquirrel.com and use this to display headers in this font across the website - but I'm worried we'll get into trouble for doing this. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

    - by DavidJFelix
    I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

    Read the article

  • selling or using a domain name with trademark of other company

    - by Prakash Moturu
    in domain name but the problem is its the exact same word of a big company i am not sure whether they trademarked it or not . is it legal to use the domain for a non profit purpose and for use in the field other than the company in ? and also can i sell it to any one is there any possibility for the company to take any action for selling or using it for some no profit and non related field i have absolutely no idea about trademarks and patents thanks for your time in advance

    Read the article

  • Loading another domain's content in a modal iframe - acceptable?

    - by user568458
    Is it okay to load another page in an iframe in a modal pop-up window - in terms of legal and ethical standards around displaying 3rd party content? I remember a few years ago there was controversy and a debate about whether it was okay to load another domain's page content on your domain in a full-width iframe, with your site providing a masthead with controls for favouriting, linking etc (e.g. like StumbleUpon). I seem to recall that the consensus was, that it was okay so long as you were clearly in no way claiming ownership of the 3rd party content or attempting to modify the content and so long as there was a 'go to site' button or equivalent; and that sites could ask you to exclude them, but generally speaking, it's an acceptable practice. How acceptable would it be considered to be to load another site's page within a modal (lightbox-like) popup box (following all the above principles: clear attribution and a prominent button that kills the iframe and gives them the 3rd party original)? My expectation would be that it would follow the same principles, and be acceptable so long as these conditions were met. Note that I'm asking about the likely legitimate responses of the 3rd party sites and possible legal position, not about usability or UX. I'm aware that this should never ever ever ever ever be the standard way external links are loaded, and that 99% of the time linking to external content like this would be terrible for usability. My specific use case is one of those 1% of cases where loading a separate page in this tab actually wouldn't be the expected behaviour of a link: an interactive data visualisation tool that also acts as a 'browser' of external content (science papers underlying the data it navigates). All other links within the interactive will change something while staying on the same page. If the user clicked one of these external links by mistake (as people often do, even when they are clearly, noisily labelled) and then had to back-button back, they would lose their fine-grained position in the interactive tool (jquery bbq hashchanges being not appropriate for all elements of the tool). New window/tab will simply open the target page on the 3rd party domain. Opening a new window/tab would also be an alternative option (and has its own disadvantages) - my question is, whether this is an alternative that could be considered (in terms of acceptable practice around intellectual property etc), irrespective of which option is best for UX: which is something we'll decide the proper way, based on actual UX testing.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >