Search Results

Search found 385 results on 16 pages for 'bsd'.

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 1/16 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License

    - by ryanve
    My understanding is that: MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects. BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects. The MIT and the BSD 2-clause licenses are essentially identical. BSD 3-clause = BSD 2-clause + the "no endorsement" clause Issuing a dual license allows users to choose from those licenses—not be bound to both. If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of using a dual MIT/BSD license? Even if the BSD refers to the 3-clause version, then can't a user legally choose to only abide by the MIT license? It seems that if you really want the "no endorsement" clause to apply then you have to license it as just BSD (not dual). If you don't care about the "no endorsement" clause, then MIT alone is sufficient and MIT/BSD is redundant. Similarly, since the MIT and BSD licenses are both "GPL-compatible" and can be redistributed in GPL-licensed projects, then dual licensing MIT/GPL also seems redundant.

    Read the article

  • Relicense BSD 2/3-clause code to GPL

    - by Brecht Machiels
    Suppose I release some source code under the new BSD license. Is it allowed for someone else to take this code, make modifications to it and distribute it under the terms of the GPL? From Wikipedia: Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the current 2-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. I'm assuming this implies that one can relicense new-BSD licensed code to GPL?

    Read the article

  • Rewriting code under BSD license

    - by Frank
    I am currently studding OpengGL with OpenGL Supebible 5th edition. I've found interested for me some C++ code that is distributed with the book (see also on google code). That code is under New BSD License. I am writing my software on C# with SharpGL wrapper and I'd like to know following things: Can I rewrite that C++ to C#? edid: I'am interesting in using such things like GLBatch, GLShaderManager and some other thing from GLTools. Problem is that library is on C++, but I use C#. How do I have to mark my source code if I put it somewhere like to my github account? What disclaimer should be? Original disclaimer looks like: /* GLShaderManager.h Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. 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. Neither the name of Richard S. Wright Jr. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 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. */ Edit: Should my copyright looks like after rewriting something like that? Copyright (c) 2014, My Name Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. All rights reserved. Redistribution...................

    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

  • What is the purpose of the "non-endorsement clause" in the New BSD license?

    - by Joey Adams
    Note: This question is not about the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause". The New BSD license does not contain that clause, and is compatible with the GPL. I'm trying to pick between the New BSD license and the MIT license for my own projects. They are essentially identical, except the BSD license contains the following clause: Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Why would anyone want to use this clause? What's wrong with gaining some notoriety if someone makes a well-known piece of software using your code? Also, wouldn't dictating what users can and cannot do with your given name fall outside the domain of intellectual property?

    Read the article

  • MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License

    - by ryanve
    My understanding is that: MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects. BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects. The MIT and the BSD 2-clause licenses are essentially identical. BSD 3-clause = BSD 2-clause + the "no endorsement" clause Issuing a dual license allows users to choose from those licenses—not be bound to both. If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of using a dual MIT/BSD license? Even if the BSD refers to the 3-clause version, then can't a user legally choose to only abide by the MIT license? It seems that if you really want the "no endorsement" clause to apply then you have to license it as just BSD (not dual). If you don't care about the "no endorsement" clause, then MIT alone is sufficient and MIT/BSD is redundant. Similarly, since the MIT and BSD licenses are both "GPL-compatible" and can be redistributed in GPL-licensed projects, then dual licensing MIT/GPL also seems redundant.

    Read the article

  • PC doesn't boot PC-BSD from USB

    - by turlando
    I've got a problem with a friend's PC: I'm installing a FreeBSD server and to make easier the installation for my friend I'm using the PC-BSD DVD. Surprise! The CD reader doesn't read DVDs, so I'm using a USB stick to perform the install. The PC seems supporting USB boot because I can choose it in the boot sequence, but the PC-BSD installation doesn't start, booting the OS installed in the primary HD. I have not physic access to the PC and I can't have at the moment more informations. What do you think about? Thanks and sorry for my terrible English. Tancredi Orlando.

    Read the article

  • IEEE 1003.1 licenses compared

    - by LarsOn
    Software or real people can technically copy a BSD software, install it and sell it. What are technical and licence advantages and disadvantages compared to taking Linux or other 1003.1 and delivering or selling it? Which license is most flexible for instance when selling or delivering a computer BSD licence seems more flexible than Linux and other specs also interesting (Haiku and likewise). Typical case someone wants a computer with which we can deliver BSD or Linux quite similar weighing licence flexibility (BSD seems best licence) and functions (Linux seems have most functions)

    Read the article

  • Can I use a project code which has New BSD license but uses a GPL license library?

    - by Alok Kulkarni
    I want to use the ICSOpenVpn project source code in my commercial application. If we see the ICSOpenVpn project, it states that its license is New BSD but the libopenvpn.so library it uses is under GNU GPLv2 license. As per FAQ for version 2 of GNU GPL "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?" The answer says: "Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library." Also, how could ICSOpenVpn change the license to New BSD?

    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 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

  • My new anti-patent BSD-based license: necessary and effective? [closed]

    - by paperjam
    I am writing multimedia software in a domain that is rife with software patents. I want to open source my software but only for the benefit of those who don't play the patent game, that is enthusiasts, small companies, research projects, etc. The idea is, if my code would infringe a software patent somewhere and a company pays to license that patent, they then lose the right to use and distribute my software. Now I detest license proliferation as much as anyone but I can't find an existing OSI approved license that does this. The GPL comes close, but it only restricts distribution, not use. I want to stop someone using my software should they obtain a patent license to do so. Does another license do this job? Is the wording below unambiguous? - I don't want a legal opinion, just whether it would be interpreted as I intend. Copyright (c) <year>, <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: [ three standard new-BSD conditions not shown here] * No patents are licensed from any third party in respect of redistribution or use of this software or its derivatives unless the patent license is arranged to permit free use and distribution by all. THIS SOFTWARE IS... [standard BSD disclaimer not shown here]

    Read the article

  • BSD route(8) MAN page bug

    - by Farseeker
    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=route Route is a utility used to manually manipulate the network routing tables. It normally is not needed, as a system routing table management daemon such as routed(8), should tend to this task. ... BUGS The first paragraph may have slightly exaggerated routed(8)'s abilities. Is this really a "bug", or some developer's attempt at humour?

    Read the article

  • Clone ports from bsd installation to another

    - by Andor
    I have a production FreeBSD webserver which I would like to "clone" to create a development/preproduction server. I've installed a clean FreeBSD server and now I would like to know if there's an easy way to list all the ports installed on the production server, get that list out and input that to the new server, so I can easily install all the same apps and same versions than in the production machine. We are using: FreeBSD 7.1 portmaster as a port manager

    Read the article

  • Straw Poll - K&R vs BSD

    - by Gordon Mackie JoanMiro
    No holy wars please - (ultimately a standardised and consistently-observed house-style on a project always wins out whatever is chosen), but I am genuinely interested in the preferences of people for K&R style formatting: public bool CompareObjects(object first, object second) { if (first == second) { return true; } else { return false; } } over BSD style: public bool CompareObjects(object first, object second) { if (first == second) { return true; } else { return false; } } K&R seems to be making a bit of a comeback recently (I'm an old programmer, so I've seen these things fluctuate); do people think K&R looks more professional, more cool, more readable, is compactness when viewing more important than extending the structure down the screen? Please use the 2 community wiki answers below to vote for K&R vs. BSD. Polls shouldn't earn rep for the first person that manages to type "BSD FTW!" My God! This question is nearly 2 years old and people are still down-voting it; ENOUGH!

    Read the article

  • Propietary modules within GPL and BSD kernels

    - by Francisco Garcia
    Since the Linux kernel is GPL and not LGPL I suppose that it is illegal to link proprietary code to it. How does the industry circumvents this? I would expect that the GPL license will force any developer to release under GPL driver and/or kernel module. Maybe I am confused and implementing a new module is not really linking against the kernel code ??? How do companies deal with this? Maybe linking the other way around (from kernel to their binaries)? On the other hand there is the BSD kernel. Where you are free to link protected IP. Can you get a better design implementing your drivers within a BSD kernel? Is there any design restriction when implementing drivers for GPL kernels?

    Read the article

  • What is considered to be a "modification" of sources under the BSD license?

    - by Den
    I have a question about the 3-clause BSD license based on it's Wiki description. It states: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... What is understood by "modification"? Specifically I am interested whether any/all of the following is considered as such modification: 1) reading the original sources and then re-implementing; 2) reading the original sources, waiting for a year and then re-implementing something based on whatever you could remember; 3) direct and very significant "complete" refactoring of the original sources.

    Read the article

  • Can I re-license Academic Free License code under 2-Clause BSD / ITC?

    - by Stefano Palazzo
    I want to fork a piece of code licensed under the Academic Free License. For the project, it would be preferable to re-license it under the ISC License or the 2-Clause BSD license, which are equivalent. I understand that the AFL grants me things such as limitation of liability, but licensing consistency is much more important to the project, especially since we're talking about just 800 lines of code, a quarter of which I've modified in some way. And it's very important for me to give these changes back to the community, given the fact that this is software relevant to security - I need the public scrutiny that I'll get by creating a public fork. In short: At the top of the file I want to say this, or something like it: # Licensed under the Academic Free License, version 3 # Copyright (C) 2009 Original Author # Licensed under the ISC License # Copyright (C) 2012 Stefano Palazzo # Copyright (C) 2012 Company Am I allowed to do this? My research so far indicates that it's not clear whether the AFL is GPL-Compatible, and I can't really understand any of the stuff concerning re-licensing to other permissive licenses. As a stop gap, I would also be okay with re-licensing under the GPL, however: I can find no consensus (though I can find disagreement) on whether this is allowed at all, and I don't want to risk it, of course. Wikipedia: ISC License Wikipedia: Academic Free License

    Read the article

  • debugging on bsd using gdb or similar tootls

    - by agent.smith
    I have started using freebsd lately and realized gdb does not support remote debugging on it. Whenever, I try to do remote debugging using gdbserver, I run into SIGSEGV crashes and error message says can’t find definition of “r_debug_state”. Has anyone ever experienced this and solved it? Statically compiled single threaded programs can be compiled using gdbserver. However, other than that it is mostly looking difficult to use. Let me know if anyone knows any other tools to do remote application debugging on bsd or how to fix the issue. (I am on x64 freebsd 9) Thanks

    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

  • Bordeaux on PC-BSD Screenshot tour

    <b>Wine-Reviews:</b> "This is a Bordeaux on PC-BSD 8 Screenshot tour. This tour will show you how easy it is to install Bordeaux on PC-BSD and start installing Windows Applications and Games. Bordeaux has a single dependency on Zenity once Zenity is installed"

    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

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