Search Results

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

Page 9/42 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Isn't GPL enough to make a software free as in free speech?

    - by user61852
    I have read people rebutting the fact that a certain software is free as in free speech, even when it is licensed under GPL. Some say Java isn't free because to obtain a professional certification you must get it from Oracle. Some say Java JDK is not free to re-distribute. Some people even say the openJDK is not free or open. But Java is officially GPL. Doesn't GPL explicitly mean you are free to re-distribute ? Isn't GPL enough to make a software free as in free speech ? How can Java be both GPL and not-free as in free speech ? Is there is any license that trully makes a software free beyond any possible subjetive point of view? EDIT: These question is not about names or trademarks, it's about the code.

    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

  • Modern.IE VM license

    - by Thomas W.
    Microsoft provides some VMs for testing purposes (advertised on StackOverflow) and I'm trying to understand the license terms. The one I don't really understand is 1.b. You may use the software for testing purposes only. You may not use the software for commercial purposes. My thoughts: a) Testing a website in several browsers on several different virtual machines seems a quite professional approach. I hardly believe many private developers would do that. Of course they should, but which private developer has the time to do so? b) If that's really only available to private developers, what is the offer to companies doing the same thing? I am missing the advertisement for a paid service. My question as a non-native English speaker: Is testing by a company considered as a commercial purpose? Can I use the VMs within a company for testing or not?

    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

  • Can a new idea for a software project be an intellectual property?

    - by Wesley Khan
    I have to do my final year project and I am going to do some kind of stuff that no one has yet attempted to do, though the completion of the project involves some things that have already been done but I am extending those ideas to do something that no one has yet done. In simple words I have an idea that needs combination of two ideas plus something from my own. Can I claim this idea to be an intellectual property of mine so that no one else attempts to do it while I am doing the project?If Anybody does it after my project, will he need a license from me?

    Read the article

  • How did craigspro license Craigslist content? [closed]

    - by Joshua Frank
    There's an app called craigspro that provides a much better interface to Craigslist on mobile devices. They claim that the app is Officially Licensed by Craigslist, but I thought Craigslist never licensed their content, and the only thing I can find on the subject in the terms of use is this: Any copying, aggregation, display, distribution, performance or derivative use of craigslist or any content posted on craigslist whether done directly or through intermediaries (including but not limited to by means of spiders, robots, crawlers, scrapers, framing, iframes or RSS feeds) is prohibited. As a limited exception, general purpose Internet search engines and noncommercial public archives will be entitled to access craigslist without individual written agreements executed with CL that specifically authorize an exception to this prohibition if ... Does anyone know how do get a "written agreement" with Craigslist, and roughly what their terms would be? Do they charge a fee, or just check that you're not evil? I'll try next with Craigslist directly, but I'd like to get a sense of the landscape before stumbling in.

    Read the article

  • Open source license with backlink requirement

    - by KajMagnus
    I'm developing a Javascript library, and I'm thinking about releasing it under an open source license (e.g. GPL, BSD, MIT) — but that requires that websites that use the software link back to my website. Do you know about any such licenses? And how have they formulated the attribution part of the license text? Do you think this BSD-license would do what you think that I want? (I suppose it doesn't :-)) [...] 3. Each website that redistributes this work must include a visible rel=follow link to my-website.example.com, reachable via rel=follow links from each page where the software is being redistributed. (For example, you could have a link back to your homepage, and from your homepage to an About-Us section, which could link to a Credits section) I realize that some companies wouldn't want to use the library because of legal issues with interpreting non-standard licenses (have a look at this answer: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/156859/54906). — After half a year, or perhaps some years, I'd change the license to plain GPL + MIT.

    Read the article

  • How do I correctly sub-license a library that is under the MIT license?

    - by Petah
    How do I correctly sub-license a library that is under the MIT license. I am using and extending the library. The MIT license states that I am free to sub-license the library. Can I simply state: <Software library> is copyright <original author> and licensed under the MIT license. <orignal license> Extensions to <Software library> are copyright <me> and licensed under the GPL license, or commercial license if applicable. <GPL, or commercial license>

    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

  • Pursuing violators of software license/copyright

    - by Dmitry Brant
    I've recently discovered a seller on eBay who is selling CDs with my (trialware) software on it. The seller is clearly trying to pass the software off as his own; he's copied all the verbiage from my software's website, except its actual name. This seller also sells a whole bunch of other CDs with free software for which he's misrepresenting authorship. For example, this listing contains screen shots that are obviously of the free program InfraRecorder. However, the name InfraRecorder or its authors aren't mentioned anywhere. Before I splurge on official legal assistance, does the community have any recommendations or past experiences with these kinds of matters? What's the best way to proceed, and at the very least, have the eBay listings taken down? Is it possible to reclaim the earnings from the sales of these CDs (not just for me, but for the other authors of the free software that this person is selling)? I realize that GPL'd software doesn't have any restrictions on "selling" the software, but this person has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the software's authorship, which is surely a violation of the license. (My software is not GPL; it's a custom license, and it does not permit redistribution of any kind without permission)

    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

  • How to make a license apply to a whole library?

    - by Yannbane
    I'm creating a standard library for a programming language, and I'd like to license each and every single class or function in there under the MIT license, so they're completely FOSS. All of the files reside in a single directory. Would it be enough to put a LICENSE.txt file in the same directory, containing the MIT license? Do I need to say that the following license applies to all features of the library, or is the library itself considered to be a program?

    Read the article

  • What are the legal considerations when forking a BSD-licensed project?

    - by Thomas Owens
    I'm interested in forking a project released under a two-clause BSD license: Copyright (c) 2010 {copyright holder} All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer at the end. 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. (2) Neither the name of {copyright holder} nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. DISCLAIMER 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. I've never forked a project before, but this project is very similar to something that I need/want. However, I'm not sure how far I'll get, so my plan is to pull the latest from their repository and start working. Maybe, eventually, I'll get it to where I want it, and be able to release it. Is this the right approach? How, exactly, does this impact forking of the project? How do I track who owns what components or sections (what's copyright me, what's copyright the original creators, once I start stomping over their code base)? Can I fork this project? What must I do prior to releasing, and when/if I decide to release the software derived from this BSD-licensed work?

    Read the article

  • Any legal issue in developing app similar to others?

    - by demotics2002
    There is a game I want to develop for mobile devices e.g. cellphone/tablet. I have been looking for this game and couldn't find it so I decide to just do it on my own. But I'm worried that there will be legal issues. I'm sorry but I do not know what is the process in doing this. I noticed for example the game Bejeweled Blitz. If I develop something similar, do I have to contact the developer and ask for permission if I develop a game with similar rules but use shapes rather than jewels? The original game exists only on Windows for free. If I develop the game, exactly similar rules but different display, am I allowed to sell it? Thanks...

    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

  • Using Domain name in EULA of a software rather than my name in the Licensor field

    - by user17330
    I intend to sell a software solution.I have already registered a domain but i dont have a registered company.Can i use my website/domain name eg:myproduct.com for the licensor field in the EULA rather than using myname.I will renew my domain yearly is there a problem with this.Do you know any software companies that work like this.Im confused about the users point of view will they find it a bit different. Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • Did Oracle make public any plans to charge for JDK in the near future? [closed]

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I recently read an article: Twelve Disaster Scenarios Which Could Damage the Technology Industry which mentioned among other the possible "disaster scenarios" also: Oracle starts charging for the JDK, giving the following as argument: Oracle could start requiring license fees for the JDK from everyone but desktop users who haven't uninstalled the Java plug-in for some reason. This would burn down half the Java server-side market, but allow Oracle to fully monetize its acquisitions and investments. [...] Oracle tends to destroy markets to create products it can fully monetize. Even if you're not a Java developer, this would have a ripple effect throughout the market. [...] I actually haven't figured out why Larry hasn't decided Java should go this route yet. Some version of this scenario is actually in my company's statement of risks. I know guessing for the future is impossible, and speculating about that would be endless so I will try to frame my question in an objective answarable way: Did Oracle or someone from Oracle under anonymity, make public, or hinted, leaked to the public such a possibility or the above is plain journalistic speculation? I am unable to find the answer myself with Google generating a lot of noise by searching JDK.

    Read the article

  • Releasing a project under GPL v2 or later without the source code of libraries

    - by Luciano Silveira
    I wrote a system in Java that I want to release under the terms of GPL v2 or later. I've used Apache Maven to deal with all the dependencies of the system, so I don't have the source code of any of the libraries used. I've already checked, all the libraries were released under GPL-compatible licenses (Apache v2, 3-clause BSD, MIT, LGPL v2 and v2.1). I have 3 questions about this scenario: 1) Can I release a package with only the binaries of code I wrote, not including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 2) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 3) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote plus the source code of the libraries licensed under the LGPL license?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to check if redistributed code has been altered?

    - by onlineapplab.com
    I would like to redistribute my app (PHP) in a way that the user gets the front end (presentation) layer which is using the API on my server through a web service. I want the user to be able to alter his part of the app but at the same time exclude such altered app from the normal support and offer support on pay by the hour basis. Is there a way to check if the source code was altered? Only solution I can think of would be to get check sums of all the files then send it through my API and compare them with the original app. Is there any more secure way to do it so it would be harder for the user to break such protection?

    Read the article

  • How do you track third-party software licenses?

    - by emddudley
    How do you track licenses for third-party libraries that you use in your software? How did you vet the licenses? Sometimes licenses change or libraries switch licenses--how do you stay up to date? At the moment I've got an Excel spreadsheet with worksheets for third-party software, licenses, and the projects we use them on (organized like a relational database). It seems to work OK, but I think it will go out-of-date pretty quickly.

    Read the article

  • Most appropriate OSS license for infrastructure code

    - by Richard Szalay
    I'm looking into potentially releasing some infrastructure code (related to automated builds and deployments) as OSS and I'm curious about how the various OSS licenses effect it. Specifically, LGPL prevents the code itself (part/whole) being modified into a commercial product (which is what I'm after), but allows it to be "linked to" in the creation of commercial products (also ok). How does the "linked to" clause relate to infrastructure code, which is not deployed with the product itself? Would the application still be required to provide "appropriate legal notices" (which I'm not fussed over)? Would I be better off looking at the Eclipse Public License?

    Read the article

  • LGPL License in commercial application

    - by Jacob
    I have searched around but I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer on my questions that I understand. I want to use the Xuggler library in my application, which is licensed either GPL or LGPL depending on whether I compile it myself. I don't intend to edit the library If I compile it myself and thus get a LGPL version of the library, can I use it in a commercial application without having to distribute the source code of my application? Furthermore, do I have to give my application the LGPL license as well? What other problems might using this library give me?

    Read the article

  • Rewriting GPL code to change license

    - by I_like_traffic_lights
    I have found a GPL library (no dual license), which does exactly what I need. Unfortunately, the GPL license on the library is incompatible with the license of a different library I use. I have therefore decided to rewrite the GPL library, so the license can be changed. My question is: How extensive do the changes need to be to the library in order to be able to change the license? In other words, what is the cheapest way to do this?

    Read the article

  • MIT and copyright

    - by Petah
    I am contributing to a library that is licensed under the MIT license. In the license and in each class file it has a comment at the top saying: Copyright (c) 2011 Joe Bloggs <[email protected]> I assume that he owns the copyright to the file, and can change the license of that file as he sees fit. If I contribute to the library with a new class entirely write by me, can I claim copyright of that file. And put: Copyright (c) 2011 Petah Piper <[email protected]> at the top?

    Read the article

  • How to monetize and/or protect framework rights?

    - by Arthur Wulf White
    I made a game engine/framerwork for ActionScript 3 that allows very efficient and flexible level design for Platformers, Tower Defense game, RPG's, RTS and racing games. The algorithms I used are new and are not available in any other level editor I've seen. What are the best ways to benefit myself and others with my new framework? It is written for ActionScript 3 so unless I translate it to C# I'm guessing it will be decompiled and used by others. I want to have some lisence, allowing me to share the framework and still benefit from it. Any advice would be appreciated. This issue has been on my mind a lot this year. I am hoping to find a solution that will bring me some relief.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >