Search Results

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

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

  • Automatic generate code: "derived work"?

    - by Peregring-lk
    For example, I've GPL software. I'm the author of this GPL software. This GPL software has, between its code, Doxygen comments. These Doxygen comments are written to generate a CC-BY-SA html page, in order to upload this generated documentation in my project website under CC-BY-SA license. But, the Doxygen documentation output is a "derivate work"? After all, this documentation is based on my GPL source code. In this case, the documentation must be GPL. But, I want the documentation is CC-BY-SA, because it is documentation. GFDL doesn't help. GPL code can't become GFDL (the opposite yes). If this output is really a derivate work, I think, creates a strange situation, because, if I distribute my work, the recipient users can't legally distribute the generated documentation: while with my work I can do I want, the users don't, thus, they have to distribute any derivated work with the same license I offer them. What is the solution?

    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

  • Do I have to release modifications made to a GPL v2 CMS?

    - by John McCollum
    If we use a CMS that is covered by the GPL (v2), do we have to re-release the source code of the CMS if we make modifications to the core? The GPL v2 states: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. The grey area for me here is the part that states "if you release the modified version to the public in some way" - does displaying a website to the public count as "releasing it to the public"? What about if a custom plugin is written which integrates with the CMS - are we required to release the source? Does this count as a modification?

    Read the article

  • Combining GPL with MPL and BSD

    - by thr
    I have a software project I want to release under GPLv3, it uses two pieces of code that other parties have developed (one is the DLR by Microsoft, which is under the Microsoft Public License and the other piece of code is under the New BSD License). The BSD licensed code is compiled into the same binary as my code (but none of it is changed) The Ms-PL licensed code is compiled into another assembly next to my code and linked at runtime (and none of it is changed what so ever). Can I release my software under GPLv3 and without any legal problems?

    Read the article

  • Licensing a JavaScript library

    - by Kendall Frey
    I am developing a free, open-source (duh) JavaScript library, and wondering how to license it. I was considering the GNU GPL, but I heard that I must distribute the license with the software, and I'm not sure anymore. I would like the library to be available much like jQuery: In a free, downloadable script, preferably in either original or minified form. Am I mistaken about the GNU GPL license terms? jQuery is dual licensed under GNU GPL or MIT licenses. How does the GPL apply to single script files like that? Can I license my library with nothing more than a few sentences in the script file? Is there another license that better suits my needs? What would be nice is a license that allows you to put the URL in the source, for people to read if they want. I don't know that many do, unless I am mistaken. I am generally looking to release the library as free software like the GPL specifies, but don't want to have to force licensees to download the full license unless they wish to read it.

    Read the article

  • Help me choose an Open-Source license

    - by Spartan-117A
    So I've done lots of open-source work. I have released many projects, most of which have fallen under GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensing. Now I have a new project (an implementation library), and I can't find a license that meets my needs (although I believe one may exist, hence this question). This is the list of things I'm looking for in the license. Appropriate credit given for ALL usage or derivative works. No warranty expressed or implied. The library may be freely used in ANY other open-source/free-software product (regardless of license, GPL, BSD, EPL, etc). The library may be used in closed-source/commercial products ONLY WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION. GPL - Useless to me, obviously, as it completely precludes any and all closed-source use, violating requirement (4). BSD/LGPL/MIT - Won't work, because they wouldn't require closed-source developers to get my permission, violating requirement (4). If it wasn't for that, BSD (FreeBSD in particular) would look like a good choice here. EPL/MPL - Won't work either, as the code couldn't be combined with GPL-code, therefore violating requirement (3). Also I'm pretty sure they allow commercial works without asking permission, so they don't meet (4) either. Dual-licensing is an option, but in that case, what combination would hold to all four requirements? Basically, I want BSD minus the commercial use, plus an option to use in commercial/closed-source as long as the developer has my written permission. EDIT: At the moment, thinking something like multiple-licensing under GPL/LGPL plus something else for commercial?

    Read the article

  • Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe

    <b>Groklaw:</b> "GPL enforcement is successful in Europe. In several court decisions and out of court settlements the license conditions of the GPL have been successfully enforced. In particular, embedded systems are the main focus of such compliance activities. The article describes the practice of enforcement activities and the legal prerequisites under the application of German law."

    Read the article

  • Non-public application uses GPL code — are we obliged to publish our source?

    - by Cimbit
    Real Example. I have a closed source server-side program for "internal purposes only" (no distribution or selling). I want to use "MYSQL C++ Connector" in my server application in my VPS (MYSQL C++ Connector is GPL). Do I have to make my application "GPL" and distribute my source code? Can I use the GPL Source Code in my closed source application. (There is no distribution or selling of my application — it is for internal purposes only.)

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to the GPL

    - by Bane
    I made a game, and I am currently making a game engine. I want them both to be completely free and open source. What license should I choose? I was reading a bit on GPL, but that seems to be more suited for system code and libraries, AFAIK, as it doesn't permit the use of code for proprietorial software - which, in turn, implies that the code can be used in the first place. I can see that, obviously, game engines can be considered libraries, and therefor be used, but what about game code? Is there an alternative to GPL?

    Read the article

  • How to minimize the amount of place used by GPL copyright notice?

    - by Lukasz Lew
    Gnu GPL page advocates a following header in each file of GPL project: This file is part of Foobar. Foobar is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with Foobar. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. I find this an over kill. Can't it be shorter and somehow refer to COPYING or LICENCE file?

    Read the article

  • Do you have to pay for GNU GPL software that is "for sale"?

    - by DisgruntledGoat
    I've seen some software (a Joomla component, to be exact) for sale on a web site. The web site says it is licensed under the GNU GPL2. However it also says you need to pay for every site you use the software on (with bulk discounts). I know it's perfectly acceptable to sell software under the GPL, however the license implies that the source code must be distributed at no cost. So is this a legitimate use of the GPL, or is it violating the license? Is it legal to download the software for free (say, from Bittorrent) and use it as I wish?

    Read the article

  • GNU GPL LICENSE

    - 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

  • Sharing code in LGPL and proprietary software

    - by Martin
    Hi I'm working on a piece of software that'll be released as a dll under LGPL. The software interfaces with hardware from a small company that has provided me with the needed libraries and some code to use them correctly (not only headers but its all in a separate file). As far as i know, the same code is used in their proprietary software that they don't intend to open source but they'd be fine releasing the piece of code they've given me. Now here's the question: What license could be used on the code I got from the company? I guess using GPL or LGPL would make them violate GPL when using the same code in their other software. Is MIT a good idea? Is it ok to just include a file with MIT license on it in my otherwise LGPL:ed project? Since I'm not the copyright holder, I'd have to ask the company to apply the license obviously but that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks /Martin

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL'ed 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

  • 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

  • Questions about software licensing

    - by iwayneo
    I've been having a discussion about licensing and open source software. Basically - the other guy is saying that licensing is easy, if you're going to build a product you can use an (any) open source project and make money by selling that code. My issue is that say I create a website or app with a project that uses a GPL license the restrictions aren't so straight forward - correct me if i'm wrong on each of these scenarios: 1 - i create an iPhone app using GPL code and put that app into the appstore - the code must be freely available to people buying that app. 2 - i create a website that my client hosts - they must have access to the code. 3 - i create a website as SaaS that my client "leases" but does not own - though it is hosted on their infrastructure - they must have access to that code Am i right on each of those assumptions? Are there any other issues i should be aware of under any other licensing terms for other licenses?

    Read the article

  • Application of LGPL license on a simple algorithm

    - by georgesl
    The "scope" of the GNU license is troubling me : I know it has been answered many times ( here, here, ... ) but shouldn't we take into consideration the complexity and originality of a code before using GPL license ? I explain : I'm working on a pet project using the DTW algorithm that I have written in C using the pseudo-code given on the wikipedia page . At one point I decided to change it for a C++ implementation ( just for hone my c++ skill ) . After doing so, I've looked for an existing implementation on the web, to compare the "cleanliness" of it, and I found this one : Vectored DTW implementation, which is part of limproved, a C++ library licensed under GPL v3 . Personnally, I don't mind the GNU license because it is a personnal project, which will never led to any kind of commercial purpose, but I wonder if this implementation can abide a company using it to open their code ( and other FOSS permissions ). Theoretically, I think it can ( I may be wrong :p ), but the algorithm in question is so simple (and old) that it should not.

    Read the article

  • Can i use Twig and Doctrine in my project which is licensed under GPL license?

    - by aRagnis
    Can i license my open sourced CMS under GPL v2/v3 license if it uses Twig (BSD License) and Doctrine (LGPL)? And i also want to know, that do i have to put this text to teh beginning of all my source files... * This file is part of Foobar. * * Foobar is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with Foobar. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. ..or can i do it like phpbb does? /** * * @package mcp * @version $Id$ * @copyright (c) 2005 phpBB Group * @license http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php GNU Public License * */

    Read the article

  • Author has inserted copyright into code with gnu public license notice - implications?

    - by Nicholas Pickering
    I've found a project on Github that I'm interested in contributing to which claims to be open source and has a GPL license included with it. But the original author has added a copyright notification to each source file. I'm not sure why but I don't feel right contributing to a project that's always going to have someone else's name on it. It really breaks the community-created feel, and makes me uneasy about what the author might choose to do with the project next. What are the implications of copyrighting open source GPL code as so? What power does this give the original author over a contributor? # Copyright (C) 2012, 2013 __AUTHORNAME__ # This file is part of __PROJECTNAME__. # # __PROJECTNAME__ is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by # the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or # (at your option) any later version. # # __PROJECTNAME__ is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

    Read the article

  • Can I create a new project based on GNU GPL v2?

    - by Jared Pearson
    I've found a SourceForge project with a solid core that I would like to improve. The project hasn't been updated since 2007 so I assume it is "dead". I sent an e-mail asking to become a contributor to the listed project manager last week but still haven't received a response. The project is licensed under the GNU GPL v2. I would like to contribute to the current project but that doesn't appear to be possible. Can I modify the current source version of the project and release this modified project? I would keep the same license on the modified project.

    Read the article

  • Can I create a new project based on an abandoned one licenced under GNU GPL v2?

    - by Jared Pearson
    I've found a SourceForge project with a solid core that I would like to improve. The project hasn't been updated since 2007 so I assume it is "dead". I sent an e-mail asking to become a contributor to the listed project manager last week but still haven't received a response. The project is licensed under the GNU GPL v2. I would like to contribute to the current project but that doesn't appear to be possible. Can I modify the current source version of the project and release this modified project? I would keep the same license on the modified project.

    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

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