Search Results

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

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

• Can GPL interface with MIT library

  - by dmontain

  I inherited a GPL project which I'm trying to improve. I know of an MIT library that could really help me improve this project. I know its developer personally and I read his blog, and he's made it clear on several occasions that he likes MIT and Apache licenses. My questions: Do I have to tell him that I'm using his library in a GPL project? Is it ok for my GPL project to interface with his MIT library?

  Read the article

• GPL/LGPL-licensed images + iPhone development

  - by cubic1271

  Since the majority of legal links / READMEs I've found when browsing icon sets refer me to the general GPL / LGPL (as opposed to a specialized version of some kind) when I'm looking at license restrictions, I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out what would constitute source code, linking, etc. when it comes to images and / or icons. One specific example: under section 5 of the GPL, modifications must carry notices in the source code. . . how do I do that with an image? I guess I could try to find a few unused bits and encode my modifications in there (steganography, anyone?), but somehow that doesn't seem like what the license is shooting for. There are also other sections in there where I have no idea how to begin to comply with. Thus, I'm really confused. What exactly are the implications of using GPL and / or LGPL licensed images in something that isn't itself GPL'd? Specifically, I'd like to know what using GPL icons in an iPhone application might mean from a legal point of view. It feels like I'm missing something obvious here; any enlightenment / references would be appreciated!

  Read the article

• How does Apache 2.0 license differ from GPL?

  - by John

  I don't know much about the full GPL license other than that it's very restrictive to anyone wanting to use GPL anywhere near closed-source code. How does Apache 2.0 license compare with GPL and other license like LGPL, MIT, etc?

  Read the article

• What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL or AGPL Web Application Framework/CMS?

  - by Seth Spearman

  Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

  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

• What does "GPL with classpath exception" mean in practice?

  - by Thilo

  Oracle seems to license all their Java-related open source code under the GPL with a classpath exception. From what I understand, this seems to allow to combine these libraries with your own code into products that do not have to be covered by the GPL. How does this work? What are examples of how I can and cannot use these classes? Why was this new license used as opposed to the LGPL, which seems to allow for pretty much the same things, but is better established and understood? What are the differences to the LGPL?

  Read the article

• Is the MySQL FOSS License Exception transitive - does it remove the GPL restrictions for downstream

  - by Eric

  I'm looking at building a MySQL client plugin for a proprietary product, which would violate the GPL as discussed in the FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins However, according to the MySQL FOSS License Exception ("FLE"), discussed at http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/, you can license an open-source product built with the client with many alternatives. The oursql library (https://launchpad.net/oursql) is BSD-licensed. Is this a valid way around the GPL? By my reading of the FLE, the only clause that refers to downstream uses of derived works is section 2.e: All works that are aggregated with the Program or the Derivative Work on a medium or volume of storage are not derivative works of the Program, Derivative Work or FOSS Application, and must reasonably be considered independent and separate works. This is the case for our product: it is not a derivative work of oursql, and in fact accesses it only via a plugin-driven interface. So is this a valid loophole?

  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

• As Perl is GPL licensed, are my Perl scripts forced to be GPL licensed?

  - by DEzra

  I am trying to make sure I license some personal perl scripts correctly. Do any Perl scripts that I create need to be licensed as GPL (i.e a copyleft license) due to using the GPL licensed Perl interpreter? Please can you back up any answers with appropriate links. Thanks

  Read the article

• Practical ways around the GPL?

  - by Daniel

  My company makes an extremely specialized piece of software which costs a lot of money for those few who need it. On our current release we have no choice but to use a few libraries which are released only under the GPL. Releasing the code is not an option and it would take months, if not years to implement the functionality the libraries provide. What do companies do in this situation? Are there practical and legal ways around the GPL?

  Read the article

• GPL license procedure product

  - by Jada

  Hi, We have a product(client-server) which we want to release under GPL. What is the procedure that needs to be followed? We also have a EULA text, what needs to be added there? Just adding the GPL license to each sourcecode file is sufficient, is it? Please advise. Regards -Jad

  Read the article

• Can I use CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree mapping) together with a GPLv3-licensed library?

  - by Erik Sjölund

  Is it possible to write an open source project that uses generated code from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) and then link it to a third-party library that is licensed under the GPL version 3? Some background information: CodeSynthesis XSD is licensed under the GPL version 2 but with an extra FLOSS exception (http://www.codesynthesis.com/projects/xsd/FLOSSE). C++ source code generated from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) needs to be linked against Xerces (http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/) that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Update I posted a similar question on the xsd-users mailing list two years ago but I didn't fully understand the answers. In that email thread, I wrote: I think it is the GPL version 3 software that doesn't allow itself be linked to software that can't be "relicensed" to GPL version 3 ( for instance GPL version 2 software ). That would also include XSD as the FLOSS exception doesn't give permission to "relicense" XSD to GPL version 3.

  Read the article

• GPL'ing code of a third party?

  - by Mark

  I am facing the following dilemma at the moment. I am using code from a scientific paper in a commercial project. So basically I copied and pasted the code from the paper's pdf into my code editor and use it in my own code. The code in the paper does not have any copy restrictions or license(like the GPL) so I thought I would be ok using it in a commercial project. However, I have seen several gpl licensed open source projects that use the exact same code from the paper to the point of having the same variable names like in the paper. So what happened here is that a gpl license was put on a third parties non gpl'ed code. Are these open source projects in violation of the gpl or would I be in violation of the gpl because I use code which has been gpl'ed? My common sense tells me it is not allowed to gpl somebody elses non-gpl'ed (like in this case from the paper) code but I though I would ask anyway.

  Read the article

• Someone selling my GPL theme

  - by PaKK

  I'm having a tough time trying to figure out the best way to handle this. I've created a few themes last year, released them under a GPL license, and pretty much forgot about them. My goal was to put them out publicly as samples of my work. I've recently come across a site and was shocked they are selling one of my themes among several other themes (not mine) and other support and package systems. Anyway needless to say I'm not happy about this. I did not intend for those themes to be sold, and if they are to be sold, at least I would expect a percentage of those sales. I contacted the website asking how many they sold and that I'm the author of one of the themes they were selling. I eventually received a reply that my theme is a GPL theme and that this license allows them to sell it without compensation to me. WTF? Just the way the reply was worded pissed me off. There is no way to comment on the site to inform possible buyers that those themes can be downloaded from my site. What can I do about this? I realize now it was a bad choice to release them under that license. Is it possible to take back the theme from public distribution or is it out forever. Can I change it from GPL to another license at this point? Will that be sufficient to stop the sale of my theme in the future? Any insights are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Distributing my Application inside a Debian Virtual Machine Image-- How to meet GPL obligations?

  - by bdk

  I have a Linux application I've developed, and I have created a standalone VMWare Image that people can download to try out the application without needing to install and configure a Linux Server. I created this VMWare Image by starting with a base Debian system, installing a bunch of packages and then configuring all the packages and daemons my application depends on. Upon load, the VMWare Image boots right into an X Server running only my application and no Window manager, so its more of a "Virtual Appliance" than a normal Linux Desktop environment. Users generally will never see a command prompt or any application other than my own. (My application itself I have a handle on the licensing issues of) Now I would like to distribute this image, but I'm not sure how to meet my GPL (and other licenses the various Debian components are released under) Obligations. As I understand it, I have two primary obligations to meet. Providing Copyright and License Information for each component I use. As I understand it, all the information I am required to present is located in the /usr/share directory in the Debian, but since my users generally will never touch a console or terminal, they will never see this. Does providing a text file containing a concatenation of all the files inside /usr/share meet this obligation Making source code available for all components I distribute. Since I am not creating the image from source, but from binary packages, I can't provide the actual source code that results in exactly my image being generated. Does providing an ftp mirror and an offer to send that mirror on DVDs of the Debian source debs for all the packages I use meet this obligation? Anything Else I'm required to do to legally distribute this image?

  Read the article

• (L)GPL license questions

  - by Marco

  I'm uncertain about a few licensing questions. I develop a closed source application, that's communicating with an open source server. Are my assumptions correct? Can I use an unmodified (L)GPL software on the server-side? I think yes Can I use and modify (L)GPL software on the server-side? I think yes because I'm not distributing the server application The client uses an communication library licensed under LGPL. Can I make changes to this library? Yes, as long as I provide the source of the library with the client software Can I take only certain parts of an LGPL licensed software and make a new project? Yes if it's licensed under LGPL too.

  Read the article

• starting a service based on someone's GPL/MIT licensed code

  - by fooyee

  someone wrote a nice framework for developing html5 3d engine. It's GPL/MIT licensed. Do you think it's a good idea to build upon it, and then repackage it and sell it as a service? For eg the framework lets you build 3d environments. so I build on it, maybe add a few features like characters and music in the environment, and turn it into an online game. Is it a feasible idea? Of course, part of the GPL license says that all source code has to be visible to end users. Assuming the web is a winner take all market based on first mover advantage, why care about hiding the source code? It's the product that's being sold that counts.

  Read the article

• GPL the Dark Side

  - by EmbeddedInsider

  This blog is about the GPL Issues nobody talks about.  Its about the evil inherent in the GPL License. Evil?  But did not someone tell us that "open" is good?  Well, yes, and I might agree. It just depends on what we mean by 'open'.   There are many kinds of 'open' license, and many of these I like.  But  I maintain the GPL; the principle license of the Open Source Software Foundation, is most certainly NOT open for business.  And to the extent that software is conceived, developed, and maintained business, not hobbyists, the GPL is very, very evil. Controversial? You bet.  Flame away please. Lawrence Ricci www.EmbeddedInsider.com

  Read the article

• TraceMonkey and GNU GPL license

  - by JavaMan

  I am trying to embed a Javascript engine into my application. But the license for Mozilla Javascript engine is GNU/GPL/MPL based and I don't have the time and energy to digest the cryptic legal document. In short, does the license mean I need to publish my application's source code if I embed the engine into my own appli.? Something I think is quite impossible but as what i understand from the CopyLeft license, any work derived from modifying the source code means the derived work must be made open source as well.

  Read the article

• GPL liscensed frameworks on eccommerce websites

  - by Adam McMahon

  Ok this may be a foolish question, but I just want some clarification on this. If you build a website on a GPL licensed web framework, let's say a browser based game or some kind of kind of sophisticated web application are you required to redistribute all the code? If this is so what licenses would allow you to build on top of an opensource project without requiring you to redistribute the code?

  Read the article

• How to Keep to GPL Licence When Modifying a Script

  - by MagicAndi

  Hi, In answering my own question, I came across this GreaseMonkey script that automatically converts currency values on a webpage. I would like to modify the script for my specific case, and I want to know how I should modify the script MetaData block to acknowledge the script's original author and respect the (letter and spirit of the) GPL. Can anyone advise? Thanks, MagicAndi

  Read the article

• GPL and hosted services

  - by John

  As I understand it GPL says you only have to distribute derivative code for works you distribute, i.e. if you develop internal software you can keep your code private. What happens if you develop a server application, say like Facebook or StackOverflow? The server app is not 'distributed' so what's the situation with your code in this case?

  Read the article

• Reselling Open Source Code licenced under GPL, MIT

  - by Tempe

  I want to use some open source code that is licenced under the following "GNU General Public License (GPL), MIT License". I want to include this code in a product that i will sell. Here is the code in particular What do i have to do to not get sued? :) I dont mind distributing the source code that i have modified, but i dont want the whole application open source. If i build the open source code into a library and open source the library can i link to it and not open the rest of my source?

  Read the article

• GPL License in closed source application

  - by Alec Smart

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

  Read the article

• 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

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