Search Results

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

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

  • How does trilicense (mpl,gpl,lgpl) work when you want to use it on public website

    - by tomok
    I have tried to search for this answer for quite some time and I have gone through all the various FAQ's and documentation regarding the three licenses; but none of them have been able to answer a question that I have. So I've been working an idea for a website for sometime now and recently I found open source software that has many of components that are similar. It is licensed under the mpl/gpl/lgpl licenses. I think for the most part I understand the ramifications, due to the searches and reading, of what is required if I modify/use and want to distribute the software. But what if I want to modify and not distribute, but use it on a public website that I generate ad revenue from? Is this illegal? It doesn't seem like it is from reading other open source system, say like Drupal, where they allow you to use the software but it's not considered "distribution" if people just go to the website. I know this site may not be the best resource and I've tried some other sites, but I haven't received any clear replies back. If you know some other resource that I could contact also, please let me know. Links for those who don't know: MPL - Wikipedia, Legalese GPL - Wikipedia, Legalese LGPL - Wikipedia, Legalese

    Read the article

  • Simple website with a GPL V3 Framework

    - by sineverba
    I write web-based software and simple website ("Home", "Who we are", "Contact"). For a simple website I'm using a covered GPL v3 framework. The user surf the website, send an email, take info, etc. I repeat: simple website, not a Joomla or Wordpress. 1) Will the website be covered with the GPL? I don't modify the framework. I'm using his classes in other classes... (OOP). 2) For the point 1, if yes, do I need to add (e.g. in the footer) name of framework and his link? 3) I must permit download of entire website to study code (nothing that a programmer has interest in)? E.g. placing it in Github? 4) If 2 is NO, how you can "understand" that we use that framework? In effect no php lines are exposed to the browser... You cannot understand that when you push "Send email" the site is calling $this->send($email). If you write me an email "Are you using XXX framework"? I can answer NO.

    Read the article

  • GPL licensed software installed on commercial hardware

    - by Alexander Reshytko
    Do vendors need to provide sources, at the customer's request, for GPL licensed software installed on the hardware they sell? For example, a vendor sells an IPTV box and pre-installs some proprietary software product which is linked with some GPLed library. As a consequence, the software becomes GPLed itself. Does the vendor need to provide the source code for it? The vendor doesn't sell that software, he sells hardware.

    Read the article

  • Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

    - by DavidJFelix
    I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

    Read the article

  • using GNU GPL v2 software as pointers to solution to problem

    - by Patrick
    I am coding a PHP serial access class and have been taking pointers from the PHP-serial class on Google Code (here). That class is based on PHP 4 and I'm creating a PHP 5 class that allows more functionality and is specific to some business demands I have. There is no code copied and I have done all the coding. Does the class I'm writing fall under the Google Code's GPL or am I free to select a license that I feel is appropriate? I'm not sure of the standard that applies to licensing when you are only looking to another work for pointers.

    Read the article

  • GPL/LGPL/MPL non-code content license

    - by user1103142
    I want to use a dictionary (basically a text file, and no code) that is included with an open office spell checking plug-in. The plug-in is under the tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL which I don't understand. is that legal? If it is illegal, what if I wrote a script that uses the said open office plug-in to generate the dictionary (assuming it's technically possible, the script will generate all possible letter permutations, passes it to the plug-in and saves the correct ones) ? I will be using the dictionary in a closed source commercial application. The dictionary is in a language that has very little resources online, and short of making my own dictionary, there aren't any alternatives. Clarification: The script idea I mentioned above, isn't a weird technique, I would generate a document with all possible words and use open office with the plug-in installed to show spelling mistakes and remove them, isn't this the intended use of the plug-in (spell checking)?

    Read the article

  • Handling optional GPL dependencies

    - by pmr
    Assume I have a library A which is licensed under a two-clause Free BSD style license. Library A optionally depends on library B (the availability of the dependency is configured at build-time), which is licensed under the GPLv3. If I distribute both bundled together, the license will need to be GPL. But am I still able to distribute library A under the FreeBSD license? How do I indicate that the license changes, when the use of library B is enabled? Do I need to distribute two different versions or can I just have one that contains both licenses and states which applies under which conditions? Any example project I can have a look at to see it done?

    Read the article

  • Using a GPL licensed library in a commercial app

    - by user577616
    I develop an android application and in my app I use a libary (jar) that I download from the internet. This jar is open-source under the "GNU General Public License v2". I tried to read the text of the license but had difficulty understanding it. My question is: can I use this libary without changing nothing in the jar in a commercial application? I will be making profit from selling my app which uses this GPL-ed .jar file. If possible, I would like to avoid converting my application to open-source.

    Read the article

  • Forking a GPL dual licensed software with business owned copyrights

    - by Eric
    After receiving some threats of the copyrights holder of a dual licensed software(GPL2 and commercial) to buy the commercial version for projects in production, I am thinking to make a fork. In a case of GPL2 and commercially dual licensed with business owned copyrights software, is forking the GPL2 version an option? Also, is forking a good way to deal with such cases? Background information The software is a web CMS released under 2 versions a GPL2 free open source edition and a commercial edition including technical support and extra functionality. The problem is that now, basing their argumentation on the "distribution" definition of the GPL2, the company holding the copyrights argue that delivering the software and some extensions to a client is considered as a "distribution". And that such a "distribution" falls under the GPL2 obligation to release the custom made extension code. Custom made extensions are mainly designs, templates and very specific functionality. Basically they give me 3 choices: Buying the commercial licensed edition for projects based on the GPL in production, Deleting all the projects in production based on GPL2 version, Releasing all the extensions as GPL2 code. The first 2 options are nothing realistic for finished projects. The third option could be fine, but as most of the extensions are very specific, cleaning the code to make it usable by other users means lot of works and also I am not sure the clients will appreciate to have their website designs and specific functionality released publicly. The copyrights holding company even contacted some clients directly, giving them the "choice". I know that this is a very corporate interpretation of GPL2, and a such action is nothing close to legal, but as an independent developer, I don't want to take the risk to get involved in some long and tiring legal procedures. PS. This question was first asked on Stack Overflow where it felt out of the scope and closed, after reading the present site FAQ, discussing about software licensing seems fine.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • MySQL 5.5

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    New performance and scalability enhancements, continued Investment in MySQL (see press release). "The latest release of MySQL further exemplifies Oracle's commitment to the MySQL community and investment in delivering rapid innovation and enhancements to the MySQL platform" said Edward Screven, Oracle's Chief Corporate Architect. MySQL is integral to Oracle's complete, open and integrated strategy. The MySQL 5.5 Community Edition, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and is available for free download, includes InnoDB as the default storage engine. We cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. For more on Oracle's Open Source offering, see Oracle.com/opensource or oss.oracle.com (for developers).

    Read the article

  • May I make an installer bundle GPL and payware together?

    - by Volomike
    I have an affiliate marketing client who needs to know if I can program this. Can I do one or both of the following scenarios without violating the GPL license? Scenario A: Make a software installer for a GPL licensed product which includes source, binaries, and license info. The installer also has a checkbox for installing optional software that's payware. (In this case, the payware is free crippleware, but has a registration upsell to provide more features.) The two products will not share libraries or anything else. Scenario B: Same as A, but reversed. So, the installer installs the payware, but there's a checkbox to also install the GPL software. And, again, when you install the GPL software, it comes with binaries, source, and license info.

    Read the article

  • Is a program linked against an LGPL library in linux still under GPL?

    - by Jonathan Henson
    If I were to write say, an embeded linux video server, how much of the code do I have to offer to someone who requests the source? Do I have to offer the code that directly links against the GPL covered code or do I have to offer all code? For instance, if I use gstreamer, or any other LGPL code, on a linux platform in my program, does all of my code become under GPL simply because somewhere in the chain, the LGPL program had to link agaist GPL code? I guess this is an extension of the question. Can you write a C library that compiles in linux that does not become subject to GPL?

    Read the article

  • If I release a program under GPL, do I have to continue to do so?

    - by Kos
    Consider this scenario: I am developing a program FooSuite that uses a GPL-licenced library QuuxTools I release the program FooSuite 1.0 under GPL Later on I discover that, for some reason, I need to licence the program to someone on different terms. Hence: I remove the dependency on GPL via QuuxTools, by either... rewriting the program not to use this library any longer obtaining a different licence for QuuxTools (if it's dual-licenced; see PyQt) I release FooSuite 1.1 under a non-GPL licence. However, FooSuite 1.1 is still a derivative work from FooSuite 1.0. I understand that it's not legal for a stranger to do what I did, but am I myself - as the owner of FooSuite - free from this restriction?

    Read the article

  • GPL question : web application using Imagick and GhostScript => Which would be the final licence?

    - by sdespont
    I am a bit confusing and I need your help to undertand my problem. I have developed a web application (PHP, JQuery) for one of my customer. Recently, my customer ask me to add a new feature permitting PDF to JPG conversion. After web browsing, I have discovered that iMagick (Apache licence) PHP extension with GhostScript (GPL licence) is the only solution. But, as my customer want to sell the web application to others companies, I have to use non-GPL licences. By the way, this feature is OPTIONAL and the final user must download and install manually iMagick and GhostScript if he his interesting by using the PDF conversion. Is there someone to tell me if the fact to use Imagick to convert PDF to JPG (and therefore use GhostScript) turns my current proprietary licence to GPL? And what about if I don't use Imagick but call GhostScript using PHP exec() function? Is there others non-GPL projects to convert PDF to JPG that I could use with PHP? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Do I need to contact a lawyer to report a GPL violation in software distributed on Apple's App Store?

    - by Rinzwind
    Some company is selling software through Apple's App Store which uses portions of code that I released publicly under the GPL. The company is violating the licensing terms in two ways, by (1) not preserving my copyright statement, and not releasing their code under the GPL license and (2) by distributing my GPL-licensed code through Apple's App Store. (The Free Software Foundation has made clear that the terms of the GPL and those of the App Store are incompatible.) I want to report this to Apple, and ask that they take appropriate action. I have tried mailing them to ask for more information about the reporting process, and have received the automated reply quoted below. The last point in the list of things one needs to provide, the “a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury,” sounds as if they mean some kind of specific legal document. I'm not sure. Does this mean I need to contact a lawyer just to file the report? I'd like to avoid going through that hassle if at all possible. (Besides an answer to this specific question, I'd welcome comments and experience reports from anyone who has already had to deal with a GPL violation on Apple's App Store.) Thank you for contacting Apple's Copyright Agent. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes infringement on Apple’s Web site, please provide the following information: an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site; your address, telephone number, and email address; a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf. For further information, please review Apple's Legal Information & Notices/Claims of Copyright Infringement at: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/claimsofcopyright.html To expedite the processing of your claim regarding any alleged intellectual property issues related to iTunes (music/music videos, podcasts, TV, Movies), please send a copy of your notice to [email protected] For claims concerning a software application, please send a copy of your notice to [email protected]. Due to the high volume of e-mails we receive, this may be the only reply you receive from [email protected]. Please be assured, however, that Apple's Copyright Agent and/or the iTunes Legal Team will promptly investigate and take appropriate action concerning your report.

    Read the article

  • GPL license and eiffel studio

    - by Michael Jenneson
    On https://www2.eiffel.com/download/download_info.aspx?id=eiffelstudio&info=false&mirrors=eiffelstudio you can download the IDE "eiffelstudio". They have GPL as their license but they also specify that "The GPL version is for the purpose of developing open-source software only! If you want to evaluate EiffelStudio for commercial software development, please download our Enterprise Evaluation Edition." However as far as i know this is directly against the gpl. Can they really specify such restrictions while adhering to the GPL?

    Read the article

  • Who will prosecute if GPL code is misused

    - by udpsunil
    I have seen using of GPL code in proprietary software which is sold to customers. It seems so wrong that they are not releasing under GPL and not contributing to the Community Is there any authority to check the misuse of GPL? How misuse of GPL can be reported?

    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 distributing non-GPLd assets with a GPL application violate the license?

    - by Richard Szalay
    This is somewhat related to my other question, but is actually different. I would like to license a Windows Phone application under the GPL. All other Windows Phone Marketplace issues aside (I'll ask those on the forums), I'd like to include icons that ship with the SDK in my application. While this is common practice (documentation points to the icons' location), I'm not sure if I'd be forcing GPL on the icons (a move expressly forbidden by the Application Provider Agreement). How is this usually handled in GPL or am I simply out of luck?

    Read the article

  • Do I have to release the code of a MIT licensed software running a GPL library?

    - by Belohlavek
    Lets say I'm using Node-Webkit, an MIT licensed app runtime. Now, let's say I decide to include a Javascript library which is GPL licensed: while I do not modify the downloaded JS file, I do write my own code making use of the library's functions. I plan to sell the final obfuscated executable and I'm wondering: what's the final license of the complete software? Do I only have to release the GPL library or does the GPL license apply for all the code I wrote? What happens to Node-Webkit's MIT license?

    Read the article

  • GPL exception that allows linking to free licenses only?

    - by fNek
    There is the GPL license and the linking exception which allows closed-source programs to use the program as a library. There is also the slightly more restrictive LGPL (more restrictive than GPL with exception since it requires that the user can change the library in the resulting project, etc.). And there is the Cygwin exception that allows linking to open source programs. I see clear advantages: Open-Source programs may use the library. People may use these programs for closed-source programs, but then they lose the permission to use the (GPL) library. However, there are two things I don't like about the Cygwin exception: - Its legal status is disputed - I keep hearing that it is basically worthless - It requires certification by the OSI, I would rather have certification by FSF Is there an exception to the GNU General Public License that meets my requirements?

    Read the article

  • How does one escape the GPL?

    - by tehtros
    DISCLAIMER I don't pretend to know anything about licensing. In fact, everything I say below may be completely false! Backstory: Recently, I've been looking for a decent game engine, and I think I've found one that I really like, Cafu Engine. However, they have a dual licensing plan, where everything you make with the engine is forced under GPL, unless you pay for a commercial license. I'm not saying that it's a bad engine, they even say that they are very relaxed about the licensing fees. However, the fact that it even involves the GPL scares me. So my question is basicly, how does one escape the GPL. Here's an example: The id Tech engine, also known as the Quake engine, or the Doom engine, was the base for the popular Source engine. However, the id Tech engine has been released under the GPL, and the Source engine is proprietary. Did Valve get a different license? Or did they do something to escape the GPL? Is there a way to escape the GPL? Or, if you use GPL'd source code as a base for another project, are you forced to use the GPL, and make your source code available to the world. Could some random person take the id Tech engine, modify it past the point of recognition, then use it as a proprietary engine for commercial products? Or are they required to make it open source. One last thing, I generally have no problem what-so-ever with open source. However I feel that open source has it's place, but that is not in the bushiness world.

    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

  • Use of Icons from a GPL'd program

    - by clartaq
    There is a GPL'd program that has some nice icons I would like to use in a project of my own. I would like to release my project under a more liberal license like Apache or BSD. After reading the GPL V3 license (a few times), I can't figure out how it applies to resources like icons. Can I use them at all? If so, must I release my new project under GPL instead of some other license? Of course, I plan to contact the original author and ask them what they had in mind and honor that intent. But what are the legal requirements for use of graphical resources from GPL'd software?

    Read the article

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