Search Results

Search found 2438 results on 98 pages for 'gpl license'.

Page 7/98 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • What power do I have over my license?

    - by DavidG
    Say for example, I've written some code under GPL 3. My company wants to use that code for a commercial product. Am I allowed to then say to them that they can use it under LGPL/MIT or any other license? If so, would I then have to change the included header at the top of each file? If so, what is stopping someone else from changing the license on my code?

    Read the article

  • LGPL to MIT License

    - by user300713
    Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to release code I am working on which uses third party code licensed under the LGPL, under for instance the MIT License? Basically I dont want to change the license of the LGPL part, I am just wondering what happens with it if I chose a different license for the whole package or if that is even possible. I know for the GPL it would not be possible at all, but what exactly does the LGPL allow me? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Public License in commercial Silverlight application?

    - by badra
    I'm developing a commercial silverlight application using some third party libraries that are published under Microsoft Public License (MPL). I have to include the license text into my product which is somewhat strange in an silverlight application. In a normal desktop application I would just include the license als a .txt but I've no idea how to do it in silverlight without including in in an about dialog or something similar. Are there any other issues involved which I missed?

    Read the article

  • Blackberry license screen agreement like Facebook

    - by Dachmt
    Hi, I have a "basic" license agreement screen for now, a Screen with a title set and vertical field containing a textfield, separatorfield and then 2 buttons (accept or decline). The license is pretty long, it's annoying going all the way down (except with the storm it's pretty easy) and I want a kind of popup screen showing the license and the 2 buttons at the bottom. To give you an example, the exact SAME as the Facebook or App World application's license screen agreement! When you scroll the text, it's going a lot faster and it's visualy great. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Encoding license file for privacy

    - by Swingline Rage
    Hi, We're using XML Digital Signatures for signing and verifying our license keys. The signing works fine and has been running smoothly. The XML license file contains a few (plaintext) details about the license, along with a binary signature. We'd like to encode (I don't say encrypt) those plaintext details (license duration, user name, etc, etc.) so they're not immediately visible to prying eyes. Is there a standard (eg, base 64 or something else) that people use in this situation? It doesn't need to be secure or particularly clever, just enough to conceal the information in Notepad. Thanks : )

    Read the article

  • Is there an alternative to Google Code Search?

    - by blunders
    Per the Official Google Blog: Code Search, which was designed to help people search for open source code all over the web, will be shut down along with the Code Search API on January 15, 2012. Google Code Search is now gone, and since that makes it much harder to understand the features it presented, here's my attempt to render them via information I gathered from a cache of the page for the Search Options: The "In Search Box" just notes the syntax to type the command directly in the main search box instead of using the advance search interface. Package (In Search Box: "package:linux-2.6") Language (In Search Box: "lang:c++") (OPTIONS: any language, actionscript, ada, applescript, asp, assembly, autoconf, automake, awk, basic, bat, c, c#, c++, caja, cobol, coldfusion, configure, css, d, eiffel, erlang, fortran, go, haskell, inform, java, java, javascript, jsp, lex, limbo, lisp, lolcode, lua, m4, makefile, maple, mathematica, matlab, messagecatalog, modula2, modula3, objectivec, ocaml, pascal, perl, php, pod, prolog, proto, python, python, r, rebol, ruby, sas, scheme, scilab, sgml, shell, smalltalk, sml, sql, svg, tcl, tex, texinfo, troff, verilog, vhdl, vim, xslt, xul, yacc) File (In Search Box: "file:^.*.java$") Class (In Search Box: "class:HashMap") Function (In Search Box: "function:toString") License (In Search Box: "license:mozilla") (OPTIONS: null/any-license, aladdin/Aladdin-Public-License, artistic/Artistic-License, apache/Apache-License, apple/Apple-Public-Source-License, bsd/BSD-License, cpl/Common-Public-License, epl/Eclipse-Public-License, agpl/GNU-Affero-General-Public-License, gpl/GNU-General-Public-License, lgpl/GNU-Lesser-General-Public-License, disclaimer/Historical-Permission-Notice-and-Disclaimer, ibm/IBM-Public-License, lucent/Lucent-Public-License, mit/MIT-License, mozilla/Mozilla-Public-License, nasa/NASA-Open-Source-Agreement, python/Python-Software-Foundation-License, qpl/Q-Public-License, sleepycat/Sleepycat-License, zope/Zope-Public-License) Case Sensitive (In Search Box: "case:no") (OPTIONS: yes, no) Also of use in understanding the search tool would be the still live FAQs page for Google Code Search. Is there any code search engine that would fully replace Google Code Search's features?

    Read the article

  • GPL License in closed source application

    - by Alec Smart
    Hello, This question has been asked multiple times I know. From what I understand, broadly speaking, if I include a GPL module in my app, I have to also release my app's source code for free. Now if the module is a java app (which I have modified) and included in my own java app, and say I use it as an applet on my website, do I need to distribute the source code to all the users visiting the website? Can I distribute the code only to people who ask for it? If I sell my applet, do I need to distribute the source code to all the users or ONLY to the users who purchase my applet? Thank you very much for your time.

    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

  • Understanding the Microsoft Permissive License

    - by cable729
    I want to use certain parts of the Game State Management Example in a game I'm making, but I'm not sure how to do this legally. It says in the license that I'm supposed to include a copy of the license with it. So if I make a Visual Studio Solution, I just add the license.txt to the solution? Also, if I use a class and change it, do I have to keep the license info at the top or add that I changed it or what?

    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

  • What software license to use for commercial software?

    - by GONeale
    Hey there, Under what license agreement should you release software under if it's closed-source and for commercial use only? Are there multiple license types? (such with open source you have BSD, GNU/GPL etc..) If so, which one do I choose, and are there samples out there to get you started? I have heard the term and seen documents named EULA.txt for an End User License Agreement, but can't seem to find a definitive guide on the net as to how to structure one but do see this included with nearly every commercial app I have installed and don't know if it's as simple just to "change to suit your business". Can anyone shed some more light on this? Thanks guys. For further details - our software is non-redistributable, non-modifiable and the user is charged yearly.

    Read the article

  • Linking to an Apache License 2.0 library and distributing with proprietary application

    - by atnakjp
    Hi all, I've read through "Apache License, Version 2.0" but my interpretation was in slightly different to an answer given in a related question so was hoping for some clarification. Supposing I created an application that linked to a library that was licensed under the license in question, my interpretation for doing what's required is: I don't need to do anything special to the application itself because it's considered neither "Work" nor "Derivative Works". When distributing the library alongside the application, I need to include a copy of the license. Any installer that contains the library would be considered "Derivative Works" and therefore I would need to show the attribution notices contained in "NOTICE" (if one exists) in one of its screens. If I were to distribute everything in a zip file instead, I would need to put the same attribution notices in a text file that I distribute alongside the file. Does this sound about right? Cheers,

    Read the article

  • Licensing a JavaScript library

    - by Kendall Frey
    I am developing a free, open-source (duh) JavaScript library, and wondering how to license it. I was considering the GNU GPL, but I heard that I must distribute the license with the software, and I'm not sure anymore. I would like the library to be available much like jQuery: In a free, downloadable script, preferably in either original or minified form. Am I mistaken about the GNU GPL license terms? jQuery is dual licensed under GNU GPL or MIT licenses. How does the GPL apply to single script files like that? Can I license my library with nothing more than a few sentences in the script file? Is there another license that better suits my needs? What would be nice is a license that allows you to put the URL in the source, for people to read if they want. I don't know that many do, unless I am mistaken. I am generally looking to release the library as free software like the GPL specifies, but don't want to have to force licensees to download the full license unless they wish to read it.

    Read the article

  • How to list all my packages from command line which can show package name, license, source url, etc?

    - by YumYumYum
    How to get all the installed package list with there license, source url? Such as following only shows name of the package only. $ dpkg --get-selections acpi-support install acpid install adduser install adium-theme-ubuntu install aisleriot install alacarte install For example in Fedora/CentOS (RED HAT LINUX BRANCH), you can see that: $ yum info busybox Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit Available Packages Name : busybox Arch : i686 Epoch : 1 Version : 1.18.2 Release : 5.fc15 Size : 615 k Repo : updates Summary : Statically linked binary providing simplified versions of system commands URL : http://www.busybox.net License : GPLv2 Description : Busybox is a single binary which includes versions of a large number : of system commands, including a shell. This package can be very : useful for recovering from certain types of system failures, : particularly those involving broken shared libraries. Follow up: /var/lib/apt/lists$ ls extras.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_main_binary-amd64_Packages extras.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_main_source_Sources extras.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_Release extras.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_Release.gpg lock partial security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_main_binary-amd64_Packages security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_main_source_Sources security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_multiverse_binary-amd64_Packages security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_multiverse_source_Sources security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_Release security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_Release.gpg security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_restricted_binary-amd64_Packages security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_restricted_source_Sources security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_universe_binary-amd64_Packages security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-security_universe_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_main_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_main_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_multiverse_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_multiverse_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_Release us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_Release.gpg us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_restricted_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_restricted_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_universe_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty_universe_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_main_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_main_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_multiverse_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_multiverse_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_Release us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_Release.gpg us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_restricted_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_restricted_source_Sources us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_universe_binary-amd64_Packages us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_universe_source_Sources

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Virtualbox license

    - by AO
    It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. (http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ) Does that mean it is totally OK to use Virtualbox at my company on a small number of computers?

    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

  • 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

  • Sql-server-2008 client Access license

    - by thushya
    Hi, case 1 : i have one user makes 10 connection from single computer, maximum number of connection at a given time = 10, what is the number CAL i need here ? case 2 : i have 10 users have access to only 1 computer, 10 user connect from single computer - maximum connection at any given time = 1, what is the number CAL i need here ? case 3 : i have 10 users using 10 computers, all 10 are making total of 5 connection maximum in any given time, what is the number of CAL i need here ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • ql-server-2008 client Access license

    - by thushya
    Hi, case 1 : i have one user makes 10 connection from single computer, maximum number of connection at a given time = 10, what is the number CAL i need here ? case 2 : i have 10 users have access to only 1 computer, 10 user connect from single computer - maximum connection at any given time = 1, what is the number CAL i need here ? case 3 : i have 10 users using 10 computers, all 10 are making total of 5 connection maximum in any given time, what is the number of CAL i need here ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Do I have to release modifications made to a GPL v2 CMS?

    - by John McCollum
    If we use a CMS that is covered by the GPL (v2), do we have to re-release the source code of the CMS if we make modifications to the core? The GPL v2 states: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. The grey area for me here is the part that states "if you release the modified version to the public in some way" - does displaying a website to the public count as "releasing it to the public"? What about if a custom plugin is written which integrates with the CMS - are we required to release the source? Does this count as a modification?

    Read the article

  • ~saas license manager

    - by Steven
    Hi all, We're developing a saas app, which is almost finished. Being in the final stages we're wondering how we are going to charge customers for using our app, how we will enforce they will not pass on their logins and so on. Does anyone know a ready-made solution? We do have a budget for this. rough criteria: - enforcing multiple payment/licensing options (trial - license with grace periods, on demand, pay per use, etc) - integration with payment providers - tracking/preventing unauthorised usage - payment/license plans adjustable on a per customer(group) basis

    Read the article

  • Generate reasonable length license key with asymmetric encryption?

    - by starkos
    I've been looking at this all day. I probably should have walked away from it hours ago; I might be missing something obvious at this point. Short version: Is there a way to generate and boil down an asymmetrically encrypted hash to a reasonable number of unambiguous, human readable characters? Long version: I want to generate license keys for my software. I would like these keys to be of a reasonable length (25-36 characters) and easily read and entered by a human (so avoid ambiguous characters like the number 0 and the capital letter O). Finally--and this seems to be the kicker--I'd really like to use asymmetric encryption to make it more difficult to generate new keys. I've got the general approach: concatenate my information (user name, product version, a salt) into a string and generate a SHA1() hash from that, then encrypt the hash with my private key. On the client, build the SHA1() hash from the same information, then decrypt the license with the public key and see if I've got a match. Since this is a Mac app, I looked at AquaticPrime, but that generates a relatively large license file rather than a string. I can work with that if I must, but as a user I really like the convenience of a license key that I can read and print. I also looked at CocoaFob which does generate a key, but it is so long that I'd want to deliver it as a file anyway. I fooled around with OpenSSL for a while but couldn't come up with anything of a reasonable length. So...am I missing something obvious here? Is there a way to generate and boil down an asymmetrically encrypted hash to a reasonable number of unambiguous, human readable characters? I'm open to buying a solution. But I work on a number of different of platforms, so I'd want something portable. Everything I've looked at so far has been platform specific. Many, many thanks for a solution! PS - Yes, I know it will still be cracked. I'm trying to come up with something reasonable that, as a user, I would still find friendly.

    Read the article

  • what do i have to do when using libraries with BSD license?

    - by androidmaster
    I am making a game using Lwjgl and this is their license. What I don't understand is what must I do? I plan on making a game and distributing it, not the source code just the .jar file and maybe sell it for a few dollars. It said that I must retain the copyright, so would that mean I must include the doc folder that the library comes with in the jar or do I have to make something in-game like credits and say "made with lwjgl"?

    Read the article

  • Choosing an open source license such that maximum value is added to a startup

    - by echo-flow
    There are many companies that produce open source software products, and many business models that these companies can use. I'm particularly interested in companies like 280 North, the company behind Objective-J and Cappucino frameworks. My understanding of this organization's business model is that they: worked to develop a tool which added significant value to developers, released the tool under an open source license, built a community around the tool (which was helped by the project's open source licensing), created interesting demos illustrating the project's value All of these things added value to the project, and the company that owned it. Finally, 280 North was sold to Motorola. My question has to do with the role of software licensing in this particular business model. 280 North licensed their software projects under the LGPL, which gave them some proprietary control over how the project could be used. I believe that the LGPL is what's known as a "weak copyleft" license, meaning that the project can be linked to, without the linking code also being licensed under the LGPL; but software derived directly from the project would need to be licensed under the LGPL. For web-oriented libraries in particular, weak copyleft, or non-copyleft licensing seems to be quite common; I can't think of a single example of a popular or well-known web-oriented library that is licensed under the GPL (or AGPL). The question then, is, how much value would a weak copyleft license like the LGPL add to a software venture like 280 North, versus a non-copyleft license, such as the BSD license or the Apache Software License? I'd really appreciate any insight anyone can offer into this, but I'd be most interested in answers that can cite other companies as case studies or examples.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >