Search Results

Search found 537 results on 22 pages for 'gpl'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/22 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • MPL with Commercial Use Restrictions (And Other Questions)

    - by PythEch
    So basicly I want to use MPL 2.0 for my open source software but I also want to forbid commercial use. I'm not a legal expert, that's why I'm asking. Should I use dual-license (MPL + Modified BSD License)? Or what does sublicensing mean? If I wanted to license my project, I would include a notice to the header. What should I do if want to dual-license or sublicense? Also, is it OK to use nicknames as copyright owners? I am not able to distribute additional files (e.g LICENSE.txt, README.md etc) with the software simply because it is just a JS script. By open-source I mean not obfuscated JS code. So in this case, am I forced to use GPL to make redistribution of obfuscated work illegal? Thanks for reading, any help is appreciated, answering all of the questions is not essential.

    Read the article

  • Placing of copyright notice in source code

    - by Diana Dcn
    I'm about to release a project of mine that I'm really proud of under the GNU GPL and I have some questions: Should one attach a copyright notice on each and every source code file from their project? I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim copyright on a 3 line abstract class. Should I attach a copyright notice only to really important source code files? Can I not attach the whole standard thingy? Because it's big and bulky and gets in the way... If so, is the variant below ok/enough? Copyright year firstname lastname. This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.

    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

  • 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

  • What license (eg. BSD, GPL, etc) can I use for an open source app that can be used commerically, for free?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I've got an application on Codeplex. It's based on some other free open source code which comes with a BSD license. As such, people keep asking if they can use my open source code/library in their commercial apps. I want them to be able to, provided they give credit to the source app (the project which i based my code, from .. and that has the BSD license) and also my code. They can take my code and do whatever (fork it, etc).. Just make sure they give credit, of course. So - what license could I use? Currently, I've set it to be GPL .. so is that ok? NOTE: Yes yes, I know that any answers are not from a lawyer and it's just all personal thoughts and I need to consult a special lawyer if I want some professional advice, etc. etc. I'm happy to take that risk, here.

    Read the article

  • Which license do you choose for google code projects, and why?

    - by Remus Rusanu
    Starting a new project on Google code offers a choice of several licenses: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License GPL v2/v3 Lesser GPL MIT Mozilla License 1.1 New BSD License Which license do you choose, ans why? I'm also interested in opinions which license is the least restrictive license for commercial users, ie. allow commercial use of the code w/o restrictions.

    Read the article

  • What's the case when using software licensed under GPL or LGPL

    - by Johnas
    With everything legal and in line with the ethical questions in software development, is it allowed to use an open source product in my software that I charge a fee for when selling? Scenario: I've developed an PHP Content Management System (CMS) and use some Linux executables licensed under GPL or LGPL in my CMS to accomplish various tasks like image editing. I'm selling the CMS and also including the executables when I deliver the product. I do not edit the source code of the GPL software, just using it.

    Read the article

  • Open Source Survey: Oracle Products on Top

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Oracle continues to work with the open source community to bring the most innovative and productive software to market (more). Oracle products received the most votes in several key categories of the 2010 Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards. With over 12,000 technologists reporting, these product earned top spots: Best Office Suite: OpenOffice.org Best Single Office Program: OpenOffice.org Writer Best Database: MySQL Best Virtualization Solution: VirtualBox "As the leading open source technology and service provider, Oracle continues to work with the community stakeholders to rapidly innovate many open source products for use in fully tested production environments," says Edward Screven, Oracle's chief corporate architect. "Supporting open source is important to Oracle and our customers, and we continue to invest in it." According to a recent report by the Linux Foundation, Oracle is one of the top ten contributors to the Linux Kernel. Oracle also contributes millions of lines of code to these important projects: OpenJDK: 7,002,579 Eclipse: 1,800,000 (#3 in active committers) MySQL: 5,073,113 NetBeans: 7,870,446 JSF: 701,980 Apache MyFaces Trinidad: 1,316,840 Hudson: 1,209,779 OpenOffice.org: 7,500,000

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to learn an algorithm from an open source project, and then implement it in a closed source project?

    - by Chris Barry
    Reference The post that started it all In order to clear up the original question I asked in a provocative manner, I have posed this question. If you learn an algorithm from an open source project, is it OK to use that algorithm in a separate closed sourced project? And if not, does that imply that you cannot use that knowledge ever again? If you can use it, what circumstance could that be? Just to clarify, I am not trying to evade a licence, otherwise I would not have asked the question in the first place. I believe this presents a difficult question and it is interesting to know where the debate can end up.

    Read the article

  • Dalvik + Java licensing question

    - by Andrew Bate
    This is a licensing question about the Dalvik and J2SE core libraries. In particular the license governing java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue. The license header of the class in the JDK source states that it is GPLv2 only (see grepcode). However, the same file in the Dalvik core libraries seems to be governed by the Apache 2 license only (see android source). How is this possible? I didn't think you could take GPLv2 source and re-license it as Apache 2. (It's obvious they did: a comment above the Java Doc even says "removed link to collections framework docs"!) I'm asking because I have a GPLv3 project and would like to include a derivative work of some source from the core libraries (either Dalvik or J2SE) but publish it under GPLv3. I thought I could do this with Apache 2, but not GPLv2. I know that the J2SE class source is itself derivative work from public domain source, but the changes from the original are substantial. (The original is available at gee.cs.oswego.edu if you are interested.) Therefore the android source really is just a copy of the J2SE source, but published under Apache 2 instead of GPLv2. Is Google really allowed to do this?

    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

  • 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

  • Licensing my own dh_* scripts

    - by avnik
    I wrote little helper script, for my own buildsystem. This script uses debhelper's Dh_lib to inject pre/post install fragments. use strict; use Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib; foreach my $package (@{$dh{DOPACKAGES}}) { autoscript($package, "postinst", "postinst-rock2deb"); autoscript($package, "postrm", "postrm-rock2deb"); } Should it be GPL'ed, because it use GPL'ed Dh_lib, or it uncopyrightable, because no other way to do it? Other scripts in my buildsystem are MIT/X licensed, and I prefer to stay with MIT/X when possible. (question moved from stackoverflow as suggested by few SG members)

    Read the article

  • How exactly does linking in C# work?

    - by akosch
    I want to use a GPL'd library in my C# application, but not necessarily release my own code under the GPL. If I understand correctly linking against a GPL'd library using dynamic linking and not distributing the library in question means I can license my own app in any way I want (the users of my software would then be required to install the library themselves). Please correct me if I'm wrong. My question is: how can I link against a DLL this way in C#? Do I only need to use C#'s using directive and add the DLL as a reference to the compiler? Is the distribution of the resulting bytecode legal?

    Read the article

  • MySQL dual license behavior

    - by jromero
    Hi SO, I'm running a commercial(closed source) Web App development for the first time. Initially I considered MySQL the most feasible option for a DB, until I get quite confused about its dual license behavior. If I want a commercial application do I still can use the GPL version of MySQL or I must get a license? The same question in a different way: If I use MySQL's GPL version does that force me to license the whole app under GPL? Either case I would go with PostgreSQL, I just want to make really really sure about this. Even in SO I've seen related("duplicates") questions but never a clear answer... All other tools I'm gonna use to code the project are licensed under BSD or MIT. Just in case, the role of MySQL in the project is merely as relational DB to store persistent data and query it. I'd really appreciate if someone can clarify this for me. Regards, thanks in advanced.

    Read the article

  • Simple alternative to GNU Readline library not GPL

    - by Bo Jensen
    I love the GNU readline library, but since it is under a GPL license, I can not use it for commercial software. Do you know alternatives ? I only need the commandline history and auto completion (of customer keywords and files) features. I found this link : http://github.com/antirez/linenoise which seem to be a good starting point, but does not have auto completion. Any suggestions, surely this must be a common task for people building interactive shell commands.

    Read the article

  • LGPL library with plugins of varied licenses

    - by Chris
    Note: "Plugins" here refers to shared objects that are accessed via dlopen() and friends. I'm writing a library that I'm planning on releasing under the LGPL. Its functionality can be extended (supporting new audio file formats, specifically) through plugins. I'm planning on creating an exception to the LGPL for this library so that plugins can be released under any license. So far so good. I've written a number of plugins already, some of which use LGPL and some of which use GPL libraries. I'm wary of releasing them with the main library, however, due to licensing issues. The LGPL-based ones would generally be fine, but for my "any license" clause. Would distributing these LGPL-based plugins with the library require the consent of the other license holders to create this exception? Along the same lines, would the inclusion of GPL-based plugins with my library force the whole thing to go GPL? I could also release the plugins separately. The advantage, I presume, is that the plugins an d library will now not be distributed together, creating more separation. But this seems to be no different, really, in the end. Boiled down: Can I include, with my LGPL library, plugins of varied licenses? If not, is it really any different releasing them separately? And if so, there's no real need to create an exception for non-LGPL plugins, is there? It's LGPL or nothing. I'd prefer asking a lawyer, of course, but this is just a hobby and I can't afford to hire a lawyer when I don't expect or want monetary compensation. I'm just hoping others have been in similar situations and have insight.

    Read the article

  • Developer friendly open-source license?

    - by Francisco Garcia
    As a software engineer/programmer myself, I love the possibility to download the code and learn from it. However building software is what brings food to my table. I have doubts regarding the type of license I should use for my own personal projects or when picking up one project to learn from. There are already many questions about licenses on Stackoverflow, but I would like to make this one much more specific. If your main profession and way of living is building software, which type of license do you find more useful for you? And I mean, the license that can benefit you most as a professional because it gives you more freedom to reuse the experience you gain. GPL is a great license to build communities because it forces you to give back your work. However I like BSD licenses because of their extra freedom. I know that if the code I am exploring is BSD licensed, I might be able to expand not only my skills, but also my programmer toolbox. Whenever I am working for a company, I might recall that something similar was done in another project and I will be able to copy or imitate certain part of the code. I know that there are religious wars regarding GPL vs BSD and it is not my intention to start one. Probably many companies already take snipsets from GPL projects anyway. I just want to insist in the factor of professional enrichment. I do not intend to discriminate any license. I said I prefer BSD licenses but I also use Linux because the user base is bigger and also the market demand.

    Read the article

  • Are certain open-source licenses more suitable than others for career growth?

    - by Francisco Garcia
    As a software engineer/programmer myself, I love the possibility to download the code and learn from it. However building software is what brings food to my table. I have doubts regarding the type of license I should use for my own personal projects or when picking up one project to learn from. There are already many questions about licenses on Stackoverflow, but I would like to make this one much more specific. If your main profession and way of living is building software: which type of license do you find more useful for you? And I mean, the license that can benefit you most as a professional because it gives you more freedom to reuse the experience you gain. GPL is a great license to build communities because it forces you to give back your work. However I like BSD licenses because of their extra freedom. I know that if the code I am exploring is BSD licensed, I might be able to expand not only my skills, but also my programmer toolbox. Whenever I am working for a company, I might recall that something similar was done in another project and I will be able to copy or imitate certain part of the code. I know that there are religious wars regarding GPL vs BSD and it is not my intention to start one. Probably many companies already take snipsets from GPL projects anyway. I just want to insist in the factor of professional enrichment. I do not intend to discriminate any license. I said I prefer BSD licenses but I also use Linux because the user base is bigger and also the market demand.

    Read the article

  • Licencing: release the same software with double licence

    - by Luca
    In my free time, I develop (alone, sigh) a project, in particoular an application library. I've released it using GPL v3. At this time, this project has come very useful for a job. I'd like to release my OSS library toghether with the application using the same GPL v3 licence, with the exception that it can be linked for the specific application, or for the specific application vendor. AFAIK, the copyright owner can handle the entire source and licencing it, I did it; and probably the licence owner could cut&paste its own code, change its licence and use for other projects, isn't? But an GPL'ed library cannot be linked with a proprietary software, right? But software could be double-licenced, as MySQL does. So the question is: what should I do to allow the distribution of my GPL'ed library with a proprietary software, being the copyright owner?

    Read the article

  • GNU General Public License (v2): can a company use the licensed software for free?

    - by EOL
    When a library is released under the GPL v2, can a company use it internally for free? If they develop software based on it, do they have to release it under the GPL, even if they don't distribute it? Can they make money by using (not distributing) internally developed software that links to the GPL'ed library, without any compensation for the author? I am looking for a software license that only allows non-commercial uses (copy, modify, link to); the resulting derived programs must also be free for non-commercial uses. Is there any software license that does this for non-commercial uses, and prevents any commercial use (including using the software in order to make money)? It looks like the Creative Commons licenses are flexible enough to do something close to that, but I've read against using them for software. What do you think?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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