Search Results

Search found 1038 results on 42 pages for 'licensing'.

Page 8/42 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Farseer Physics Engine and the Ms-PL License

    - by Stephen Tierney
    Am I able to produce code for a game which uses the Farseer engine and release my code under an open source license other than the Ms-PL? My concern is with the following section from the license: 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. If I do not include Farseer in my source code distribution does this give me an exemption from this clause as I am not distributing the software? My code merely uses its functions. No where in the license does it force you to provide source code for derivative works or linking works, it simply gives you the option of "if you distribute".

    Read the article

  • OpenSource License Validation [closed]

    - by Macmade
    I'm basically looking for some kind of FLOSS/OpenSource license validation service. I have special needs for some projects I'd like to open-source. I know there's actually tons of different FLOSS/OpenSource licenses, each one suitable for some specific purpose, and that creating a «new» one is not something recommended, usually. Anyway, even if I'm not an expert in the legal domain, I've got some experience with FLOSS/OpenSource, at a legal level, and it seems there's just no license covering my needs. I actually wrote the license terms I'd like to use, and contacted the FSF, asking them to review that license, as it seems (at least that's written on their website) they can do such review work. No answer. I tried repetitively, but no luck. So I'm currently looking for an alternate legal expertise about that specific license. I don't mind paying such a service, as long as I can be sure the license can be recognised as a FLOSS/OpenSource license. About the license, it's basically a mix of a BSD (third-clause) with a BOOST software license. The difference is about redistribution. Source code redistribution shall retain the copyright novices. The same applies for binary redistribution (like BSD), unless it's distributed as a library (more like BOOST). I hope this question is OK for programmers.stackexchange. I'm usually more active on StackOverflow, but it just seems the right place for such a question. So thank you for your time and enlightened advices. : )

    Read the article

  • Where can I buy freely redistributable (creative commons) game assets?

    - by Erlend
    I'd like to know about any 3D asset shops out there that specialize in game assets and, most importantly, license their assets under an open license like Creative Commons or similarly permissive. We are looking to buy some professional looking assets for use and redistribution with our open source 3D game engine. The problem is that all the commercial 3D assets we've come by are only sold under very restrictive licenses, which won't allow us to include the models in our code repository (since free code hosting repositories require that all your data, including media, is open source or otherwise copyleft) nor in turn redistribute the assets as part of our downloadable SDK. I realize this sounds like a weak business idea, since users could just buy the asset and start sharing it with everyone. But somehow this has worked for hundreds of WordPress theme shops, so I was hoping maybe someone's trying similar things for commercial game assets.

    Read the article

  • I need to develop a parser. Can I use Lex and Yacc for the purpose?

    - by Scrooge
    I need to extract very particular data from log files(of different types and formats). Since I am a recent college passout; my mind ran to using Lex and Yacc for the purpose. Now I have the following Questions 1. Will it be legal to do so ? (This product I am working for belongs to one of the biggest tech companies in the world.) 2. Also ; I would like to know if I am being too afraid to write my own parser? 3. How can I use Lex and Yacc if my product is Windows based? Please tell me if you need any clarification or extra information.

    Read the article

  • Purchasing Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate and Professional version

    - by Don
    We are a small team with 5-7 developers. We are planning to purchase Visual Studio 2010, better with one or two Ultimate version, others with professional version. The suggestion from Microsoft is getting it from retail. We find we can get them from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/buy.aspx or http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Studio-2010-Ultimate-MSDN/dp/B0038KNER0/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296675635&sr=8-2-fkmr3. From Amazon, it will be lower cost. We wonder if we buy from Microsft directly we can get additional benefits like supports, which other retailers can not provide. Anyone has any ideas? What is the cost effient way? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Proper attribution of derived work in a GPL project

    - by Anton Gogolev
    This is a continuation of me rewriting GPL project. What will be the correct way of attributing my project as being a derivative of some other GPL-licensed project? So far I came up with: HgSharp Original Copyright Matt Mackall <[email protected]> and contributors. The following code is a derivative work of the code from the Mercurial project, which is licensed GPLv2. This code therefore is also licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License, verison 2. For information on the license of this code when distributed with and used in conjunction with the other modules in the HgSharp project, please see the root-level COPYING file. Copyright 2011-2012 Anton Gogolev <[email protected]>

    Read the article

  • Does the LGPL allow me to do this?

    - by user1229892
    I am planning to develop a commercial software using a LGPL software. In the LGPL software that I am using some functions in a class are not fully implemented. I want to modify the LGPL code so that the class and not-implemented functions are made visible outside the dll by adding dllexport infront of class and by adding virtual keyword infront of function. Then I plan to implement those functions in my proprietary software. I am ready to distribute the modified LGPL code but not proprietary software that implements functions in the way I want. Does that violate LGPL terms and conditions?

    Read the article

  • Is there a modified LGPL license that allows static linking?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    úLGPL requires that it if a program uses LGPL-ed library, users must be able to re-link the program with a different version of the library: ... d) Do one of the following: 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source. 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. ... However in some cases, this can pose considerable difficulties. In particular, Haskell programs are almost always statically compiled. Moreover, the compiler does cross-module optimizations so it's very hard to satisfy this condition. (See this link at Haskell Wiki.) Therefore, I'm looking for a standard LGPL-like license that wouldn't require the possibility of re-linking. Some projects use their own modification of LGPL, for example wxWidgets. But I'd rather use some standard license that is somewhat more official, perhaps checked by some law experts, and (L)GPL compatible. Is there some like that? (Also I'd be interested to know if are there some unforeseen consequences of such a modification of LGPL.)

    Read the article

  • Avoid GPL violation by moving library out of process

    - by Andrey
    Assume there is a library that is licensed under GPL. I want to use it is closed source project. I do following: Create small wrapper application around that GPL library that listens to socket, parse messages and call GPL library. Then returns results back. Release it's sources (to comply with GPL) Create client for this wrapper in my main application and don't release sources. I know that this adds huge overhead compared to static/dynamic linking, but I am interested in theoretical way.

    Read the article

  • How to include an apache library with my opensource code?

    - by OscarRyz
    I have this opensource code with MIT license that uses an Apache 2.0 licensed library. I want to include this in my project, so it can be built right away. In the point 4 of that license explains how to redistribute it: excerpt: 4 . Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. I'm not creating a derivative work ( I plan to provide it as it is ). I don't have a NOTICE file, just my my own LICENSE.txt file. Question: Where should I put something along the lines: "This project uses Xyz library distributed under Apache2.0 ..."? What's recommented? Should I provide the apache license file too? Or would be enough if I just say "Find the license online here...http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" I hope someone who has done this in the past may shed some light on the matter.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create and distribute an app for the BlackBerry Playbook that doesn't go into App World?

    - by Drackir
    My company is looking to create an app that we'll use internally on several (about 20) BlackBerry Playbooks. We don't want it to be put up on App World because it's just an internal application. I'm wondering if there are any: Costs involved with this outside of paying a programmer to develop it - i.e. Are there any license fees, deployment fees, etc. License issues involved with deploying the app to multiple Playbooks without deploying it to App World Limitations on functionality of the app Other things we should be taking into consideration If it matters, the app will be collecting information and downloading it to a computer via USB.

    Read the article

  • Question about the no-endorsment clause on the BSD license

    - by Earlz
    I'm developing a non-free library and I want to use Bcrypt.Net in it. The clause in question: Neither the name of BCrypt.Net nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. To what extent does this mean I can't use the name of Bcrypt.Net? For instance, could I say "the only ASP.Net authentication library capable of using Bcrypt" or can I even include "supports Bcrypt for password hashing" in promotional materials? Note: I do not actually modify any of Bcrypt.Net's code

    Read the article

  • How to credit other authors in an open source project

    - by erik
    I have a pet project that I am planning to release as open source at some point in the not-too-distant future. A couple of the files use or are mostly code that was taken from a project released under the New BSD License. While I have changed it to fit my needs and added some small stuff, the algorithm and the functionality is basically exactly the same. I want to make sure that the author of the code gets credit and that the license is not broken, but I also want to make the reader aware that this is not the code as it was orignally released. How should I approach this? Should I isolate the code as much as possible and just retain the original license? Maybe put all the files that contain foreign code in their own folder and add a readme explaining what has been added/removed? There must have been tons of projects using other open source code. What is the standard approach to this?

    Read the article

  • Rewrote GNU GPL v2 code in another language: can I change a license?

    - by Anton Gogolev
    I rewrote some parts of Mercurial (which is licensed under GNU GPL v2) in C#. Naturally, I looked a lot into original Python code and some parts are direct translations from Python to C#. Is is possible have "my code" licensed under different terms or to even make a part of a closed-source commercial application? If not, can I re-license "my-code" under LGPL, open-source it and then use this open-sourced C# library in my closed-source commercial application?

    Read the article

  • .NET licenses and project worths millions

    - by Ivan Tanasijevic
    I have a question about. NET licenses. I heard that in the case when project becomes worth millions, Microsoft have rights on great percent of this amount. If this is true, then how are things with social network which is built with ASP.NET MVC. Is this the same situation as in the case of the profit coming from selling software, because in this situation profit comes from marketing not from direct selling software.

    Read the article

  • Is there an open source license for this?

    - by Philip
    I have written code at home, on my own time and using my own knowledge and equipment, while under no contract or NDA. I want to make this code open source so that I can use it in software I write for an employer, without denying myself the right to use it at home or elsewhere later. I'm not sure if saying it is in the "public domain" would fit this purpose, or if I need to find an open source license. I want anyone to be able to use the code in closed source proprietary software with zero requirements for including a license with the source or binary. And I want to minimize the risk of anyone being sued for using it. (I'm aware that one can never be 100% safe from being sued.) Is there an open source license that fits this purpose? To what extent is what I want to do even possible? I wouldn't mind putting the license in comments in the code files themselves, but that obviously doesn't go with the binary.

    Read the article

  • Rights and use of developed software

    - by Nils Munch
    I have been working on a piece of software for a company, that they wish to resell. There was an mail-based agreement upon a flat hourly rate for my work, and eager me chose to accept a rather low fee. Due to the stress and tempo of the task, a direct contract was never formed or signed. The software was developed locally on my machine, and I was pretty much alone with it, except by excellent help from StackOverflow when I got stuck. Now, the software is nearing completion, I suddenly hear that they have hired a new developer to make the same piece of software as me, and that I was expected to resign within long. Confused I ask around, and realize that the CEO of the company had informed the rest of the company that I was terminally ill and had cancer, and was expected to leave the company soon. Since I'm perfectly healthy, this confused me even more, until I realized what was going on. When I confronted my boss with this, I was no longer seen as a member of the company, and I left the same day, never to return. Later, I raised the question about my missing pay, since I had been working for quite a bit, and not received any payment for my software. I saw that they had already sold a fair copy of my software, and since it's not exactly sold cheap, the company should have plenty of gold to pay me. The company refused, and said that they owned the software, and everything it contained. That was a lot of drama, but my question is this: Who has the rights to the software ? The source code had my personal watermarks and copyrights inprinted, but they have since simply deleted it. The company claim that they have all the rights, because they have a website made about the product, where they write that they have "All rights reserved" in the bottom. My instinct tells me that if a company buys a service like this, and then refuses to pay their developer, then they should not be allowed to keep, and much less resell the product. I have not signed any agreements about giving the company the use of this product, I have made it in my own time and without help from the rest of the company. This all takes place in Denmark, Europe, but I would guess that the rules about this is somewhat universal. Im not the strongest person to legal-talk, so I might be wrong.

    Read the article

  • How can I best manage making open source code releases from my company's confidential research code?

    - by DeveloperDon
    My company (let's call them Acme Technology) has a library of approximately one thousand source files that originally came from its Acme Labs research group, incubated in a development group for a couple years, and has more recently been provided to a handful of customers under non-disclosure. Acme is getting ready to release perhaps 75% of the code to the open source community. The other 25% would be released later, but for now, is either not ready for customer use or contains code related to future innovations they need to keep out of the hands of competitors. The code is presently formatted with #ifdefs that permit the same code base to work with the pre-production platforms that will be available to university researchers and a much wider range of commercial customers once it goes to open source, while at the same time being available for experimentation and prototyping and forward compatibility testing with the future platform. Keeping a single code base is considered essential for the economics (and sanity) of my group who would have a tough time maintaining two copies in parallel. Files in our current base look something like this: > // Copyright 2012 (C) Acme Technology, All Rights Reserved. > // Very large, often varied and restrictive copyright license in English and French, > // sometimes also embedded in make files and shell scripts with varied > // comment styles. > > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > #ifdef UNDER_RESEARCH > holographicVisualization(on); > #endif > } And we would like to convert them to something like: > // GPL Copyright (C) Acme Technology Labs 2012, Some rights reserved. > // Acme appreciates your interest in its technology, please contact [email protected] > // for technical support, and www.acme.com/emergingTech for updates and RSS feed. > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > } Is there a tool, parse library, or popular script that can replace the copyright and strip out not just #ifdefs, but variations like #if defined(UNDER_RESEARCH), etc.? The code is presently in Git and would likely be hosted somewhere that uses Git. Would there be a way to safely link repositories together so we can efficiently reintegrate our improvements with the open source versions? Advice about other pitfalls is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Should companies require developers to credit code they didn't write?

    - by sunpech
    In academia, it's considered cheating if a student copies code/work from someone/somewhere else without giving credit, and tries to pass it off as his/her own. Should companies make it a requirement for developers to properly credit all non-trivial code and work that they did not produce themselves? Is it useful to do so, or is it simply overkill? I understand there are various free licenses out there, but if I find stuff I like and actually use, I really feel compelled to give credit via comment in code even if it's not required by the license (or lack thereof one).

    Read the article

  • How does the GPL work in regards to languages like Dart which compile to other languages?

    - by Peter-W
    Google's Dart language is not supported by any Web Browsers other than a special build of Chromium known as Dartium. To use Dart for production code you need to run it through a Dart-JavaScript compiler/translator and then use the outputted JavaScript in your web application. Because JavaScript is an interpreted language everyone who receives the "binary"(Aka, the .js file) has also received the source code. Now, the GNU General Public License v3.0 states that: "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Which would imply that the original Dart code in addition to the JavaScript code must also be provided to the end user. Does this mean that any web applications written in Dart must also provide the original Dart code to all visitors of their website even though a copy of the source code has already been provided in a human readable/writable/modifiable form?

    Read the article

  • Using an AGPL 3.0-licensed library for extra functionality in an iOS app

    - by Arnold Sakhnov
    I am building an iOS application, and I am planning to incorporate an AGPL 3.0-licensed library to it to provide some extra (non-essential) functionality. I’ve got a couple of questions regarding this: Do I understand it right that this still obliges me to publish the source of my app open? If yes, does it have to be open to the general public, or only to those who have downloaded the app? Does this allow me to distribute the app for a fee?

    Read the article

  • Reasons NOT to open source not-for-profit code?

    - by naught101
    I am a big fan of open source code. I think I understand most of the advantages of going open source. I'm a science student researcher, and I have to work with quite a surprising amount of software and code that is not open source (either it's proprietary, or it's not public). I can't really see a good reason for this, and I can see that the code, and people using it, would definitely benefit from being more public (if nothing else, in science it's vital that your results can be replicated if necessary, and that's much harder if others don't have access to your code). Before I go out and start proselytising, I want to know: are there any good arguments for not releasing not-for-profit code publicly, and with an OSI-compliant license? (I realise there are a few similar questions on SE, but most focus on situations where the code is primarily used for making money, and I couldn't much relevant in the answers.) Clarification: By "not-for-profit", I am including downstream profit motives, such as parent-company brand-recognition and investor profit expectations. In other words, the question relates only to software for which there is NO profit motive tied to the software what so ever.

    Read the article

  • Is there an open source license that allows any use, except within a GPL/copyleft project? [on hold]

    - by Marcos Scriven
    I would like to open source some code with a permissive license (say MIT/BSD) I would be happy for it to be used both commercially and in any open source project that is not copyleft (GPL being the main one obviously). I looked at the list of non-GPL compatible licenses here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses But none seemed to be quite what I wanted. Is there such a license already? If not, would it even be possible to do this? EDIT: I have been asked to edit this question to clarify. I'm not sure how it's unclear, as that wasn't stated. What I would like to know is simply the answer to the topic - can anyone point to a standard licence that is permissive as possible, while restricting use in copyleft licence. I'm not clear why the question would be suspended by the same person that edited spelling differences (apparently British English is a 'mistake') in the question earlier, and by another that had answered licencing questions in other posts.

    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

  • Software Licenses: No Distribution and Private Selling Using Dual Licenses

    - by user102945
    Hi I recently wrote a couple of WordPress Themes in PHP and was wondering what license i should put on it. I don't mind users reusing my code but i don't want them to be able to sell and redistribute my themes as i want to retain that right. I heard somewhere that an all rights reserved link would stop the distributing etc. Is that true or do i need to include another license and dual license my Themes. So to sum it up i want to use a license to stop others from selling and distributing my themes, while at the same time letting others use the code if they want to.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >