Search Results

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

Page 10/42 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Is there a precedent for the license on a compiler restricting the kind of development you can use it for?

    - by Jim McKeeth
    It was recently let slip that the new EULA for Delphi XE3 will prohibit Client Server development with the Professional edition without the additional purchase of a Client Server license pack. This is not to say the Professional version will lack the features, but the license will specifically prohibit the developer from using the compiler for a specific class of development, even with 3rd party or home grown solutions. So my question is if there is a precedent of a compiler or similar creative tool prohibiting the class of work you can use it for. Specifically a commercially licensed "professional" tool like Delphi XE3. Also, would such a restriction be legally enforceable? I know there have been educational edition or starter edition tools in the past that have restricted their use for commercial purposes, but those were not sold as "professional" tools. Also I know that a lot of computing software and equipment will have a disclaimer that it is not for use in "life support equipment" or "nuclear power" but that is more of avoiding liability than prohibiting activity. Seems like I recall Microsoft putting a restriction in FrontPage that you couldn't use it to create a web site that reflected poorly on Microsoft, but they pulled that restriction before it could be tested legally.

    Read the article

  • Author's work and copyright. in UI design

    - by c-smile
    Typical situation in UI design: you do design of some UI and, say, came up with some bright new idea like "ribbon" or "kinetic scroll past end". What would be the strategy about such thing? Register patent, don't like it, but anyway would like to ask: how long it takes to do all this stuff and how much it will cost in average? If to forget about patents, will the idea have something like "prior art" status or some such if someone will try to patent this in future? All this about project / product published by solo developer.

    Read the article

  • MPL with Commercial Use Restrictions (And Other Questions)

    - by PythEch
    So basicly I want to use MPL 2.0 for my open source software but I also want to forbid commercial use. I'm not a legal expert, that's why I'm asking. Should I use dual-license (MPL + Modified BSD License)? Or what does sublicensing mean? If I wanted to license my project, I would include a notice to the header. What should I do if want to dual-license or sublicense? Also, is it OK to use nicknames as copyright owners? I am not able to distribute additional files (e.g LICENSE.txt, README.md etc) with the software simply because it is just a JS script. By open-source I mean not obfuscated JS code. So in this case, am I forced to use GPL to make redistribution of obfuscated work illegal? Thanks for reading, any help is appreciated, answering all of the questions is not essential.

    Read the article

  • Using source code with no license

    - by nathansizemore
    I've recently come across a publicly viewable project on Github that has no license associated with it. In this repo, there is a file with the logic and most of the code needed to work as a piece of a project I am working on. Not verbatim, but about 60% of it I'd like to use with various modifications. Once my code base is a little bit more stable, I plan to release what I've done under the WTFPL License. I've emailed the repo owner, and so far have not gotten a reply. I know I have the rights to fork the repo, but if I release a stripped down and modified version of the other project's file with mine, under the WTFPL, am I infringing on copyrights? Per Github's Terms of Service, by submitted a project on Github and making it viewable to the public, you are allowing other users to see and fork your project. Doesn't say anything about modifying, distributing, or using the fork. And at what point of modification to the original does it become owned by me?

    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

  • What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?

    - by Yannbane
    To quote the license itself: Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I am not exactly sure what the bold part implies. Lets say that I'm creating some library, and I license it under the MIT license. Someone decides to fork that library and to create a closed-source, commercial version. According to the license, he should be free to do that. However, what does he additionally need to do under those terms? Credit me as the creator? I guess the "above copyright notice" refers to the "Copyright (C) [..." part, but, wouldn't that list me as the author of his code (although I technically typed out the code)? And wouldn't including the "permission notice" in what is now his library practically license it under the same conditions that I licensed my own library in? Or, am I interpreting this incorrectly? Does that refer to my obligations to include the copyright and the permission notice?

    Read the article

  • Can I distribute a software with the following permission notice

    - by Parham
    I've recently written a piece of software (without any other contributors) for a company which I part own. I was wondering if I could distribute it with the following permission notice, which is a modified version of the MIT License. Are there any obvious risks if I do distribute with this licence and does it give me the right to reuse the code in other projects? Permission is hereby granted, to any person within CompanyName (the "Company") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, excluding any third party libraries (the "Software"), to deal with the Software, with limitations restricted to use, copy, modify and merge, the Software may not be published, distributed, sublicensed and/or sold without the explicit permission from AuthorName (the "Author"). This notice doesn't apply to sections of the Software where copyright is held by any persons other than the Author. The Author remains the owner of the Software and may deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

    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

  • Unicode license

    - by Eric Grange
    Unicode Terms of use (http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html) state that any software that uses their data files (or a modification of it) should carry the Unicode license references. It seems to me that most Unicode libraries have functions to check if a character is a digit, a letter, a symbol, etc. ans so will contain a modification of the Unicode Data Files (usually in the form of tables). Does that mean the license applies and all applications that use such Unicode libraries should carry the license? I've checked around, and it appears very few Unicode software do carry the license, though arguable most of those that didn't carry the license were from companies that were members of the Unicode consortium (do they get license exemption?). Some (f.i. Mozilla) are only "Liaison Members", and while their software do not carry the license (AFAICT), they do obviously rely on data derived from those data files. Is Mozilla in breach of the license? Should we carry the license in all apps that include any form of advanced Unicode support? (ie. are bound to rely on the Unicode data files) Or is there some form of broad exemption? (since very very few software out there carries the license)

    Read the article

  • How does using a LGPL gem affect my MIT licensed application?

    - by corsen
    I am developing an open source ruby application under the MIT license. I am using this license because I don't want to place any restrictions on the users of the application. Also I can actually read and understand this license. I recently started using another ruby gem in my project (require "somegem"). This ruby gem is under the LGPL license. Do I have to change anything about my project because I am using this other ruby gem that is licensed with LGPL? My project does not contain the source code for the other gem and it is not shipped with my project. It is simply listed as a dependency so that ruby gems will install it and my project will call into it from my code. Additionally, it would be helpful to know if there are any licenses I need to "watch out for" because using them would affect the license of my project. There are some other post about this topic but phrased in different ways. Since I find this license stuff tricky I am hoping to get a answer directed at my situation. Thank you, Corsen

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Public License Question

    - by ryanzec
    Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

    Read the article

  • Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers?

    - by Smarty Twiti
    I am trying to make my first app for sale, I would like to ask some questions for those who have already sold their software: Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers? for example, if your customers/ competitors from the market reveal technology/secrets that you used in your solution (as LGPL requires that you make a Dynamic Link (.DLL) for your libs and you clearly tell the use of a Lib/Framework). Full story: For my project, I used a framework LGPL/commercial (Dual License) the second one it was too expensive (about 3000 USD) which pushed me to use LGPL however I still concerned. That is why I ask for advise and especially motivations.

    Read the article

  • Making money from a custom built interpreter?

    - by annoying_squid
    I have been making considerable progress lately on building an interpreter. I am building it from NASM assembly code (for the core engine) and C (cl.exe the Microsoft compiler for the parser). I really don't have a lot of time but I have a lot of good ideas on how to build this so it appeals to a certain niche market. I'd love to finish this but I need to face reality here ... unless I can make some good monetary return on my investment, there is not a lot of time for me to invest. So I ask the following questions to anyone out there, especially those who have experience in monetizing their programs: 1) How easy is it for a programmer to make good money from one design? (I know this is vague but it will be interesting to hear from those who have experience or know of others' experiences). 2) What are the biggest obstacles to making money from a programming design? 3) For the parser, I am using the Microsoft compiler (no IDE) I got from visual express, so will this be an issue? Will I have to pay royalties or a license fee? 4) As far as I know NASM is a 2-clause BSD licensed application. So this should allow me to use NASM for commericial development unless I am missing something? It's good to know these things before launching into the meat and potatoes of the project.

    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

  • Anti Cloud Open Source License

    - by Steve
    I'm working on a browser based open source monitoring project that I want to be free to the community. What I'm worried about is someone taking the project, renaming it, deploying it in the cloud and start charging people who don't even know my project exists. I know I maybe shouldn't mind, but it just sticks in my throat a bit if someone took a free ride like that and contributed nothing back. Is there any common open source license that can prevent this. I know GPL or AGPL don't.

    Read the article

  • Options for Opensource license?

    - by foodil
    I am choosing a license for my open source software and I've learned about GPL, EBMS and BSD. GPL seems to be most popular one. The problems are: Would anybody kindly name a few popular opensource licenses? Since I do not see any EBMS BSD license is popular. Are there any chart or table that have list out the advantages/disadvantages of using anyone? Why is the GPL always the license developers choose from, what are its benefits? Thank you.

    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

  • Submitting software to a competition, it becomes their property?

    - by myrkos
    So I'm about to submit a game to a competition, but as I looked through the rules a chunk grabbed my attention: All Entries become the sole and exclusive property of Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned. Sponsor shall own all right, title and interest in and to each Entry, including without limitation all results and proceeds thereof and all elements or constituent parts of Entry (including without limitation the Mobile App, the Design Documents, the Video Trailer, the Playable and all illustrations, logos, mechanicals, renderings, characters, graphics, designs, layouts or other material therein) and all copyrights and renewals and extensions of copyrights therein and thereto. Without limitation of the foregoing, each Eligible Entrant shall and hereby does absolutely and irrevocably assign and transfer all of his or her right, title and interest in his or her Entry to Sponsor, and Sponsor shall have the right and may authorize others to use, copy, sublicense, transmit, modify, manipulate, publish, delete, reproduce, perform, distribute, display and otherwise exploit the Entry (and to create and exploit derivative works thereof) in any manner, including without limitation to embody the Entry, in whole or in part, in apps and other works of any kind or nature created, developed, published or distributed by Sponsor and to and register as a trademark in any country in Sponsor’s name any component of the Entry, without such Eligible Entrant reserving any rights or claims with respect thereto. Sponsor shall have the exclusive right, in perpetuity, throughout the Territory to change, adapt, modify, use, combine with other material and otherwise exploit the Entry in all media now known or hereafter devised and in any manner, in its sole and absolute discretion, without the need for any payment or credit to Entrant. So the game will become the sponsor's property; however, they don't ask for source code. So will I still own the rights to the source code, whatever that means? And if it doesn't win said competition, will I be able to publish it myself without their trademarks? I am very new to software legality stuff, so I would appreciate any clarification. Since there's a possibility I won't even own the source, is it possible to make the game core engine open source software with a not-very-restrictive license and include that in the project, so I at least still own the game engine? Or does it not work that way?

    Read the article

  • Using components with different permissive licenses in a commercial app. How to display copyright correctly?

    - by Ivaylo Slavov
    I am writing a commercial application that will make use of some open libraries licensed under different licenses. For example one library will be licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, another will use the LGPL license. Both licenses allow usage in commercial applications, but differ in the way the attributions of licensed work is given. It is my first commercial application that uses 3rd party libraries and I want to do the right thing so that the 3rd party licenses are satisfied. I am not only asking what I should do, but also what I must not do.

    Read the article

  • Selling an open source project: some issues

    - by Sander
    I am the creator / main developer of a small sized open source (PHP) project (GPL3). Currently there is a development team of 3 people (me included). This team has been quite active for some time, but since almost 2 years not much has happened. I myself have decided I want to stop working on the project, but I can't just leave the project because I care about it and I know if I abandon it, it will just be a matter of time before the project completely dies. At this moment, there are still some users and the project is only slightly out-of-date. So I'm thinking about selling the whole project. Of course I'd need to get consent of the other developers, but for now I'm assuming that's not a big problem. So at this moment I have 2 questions: 1) If the project would be sold to a commercial party, would it be possible for them to convert the project to closed source? I would prefer to sell the project to a company/organization that would continue the development under an open source license. 2) Does anyone have any tips to find interested parties? I don't know if I just want to put up a "For Sale" sign on the website of the project. Maybe someone has experience with a comparable situation. Ok guys, thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • What are some general guidelines for setting up an iOS project I will want to personally publish but sell in the future?

    - by RLH
    I have an idea for a personal iOS project that I would like to write and release to the iOS store. I'm the type of developer who enjoys developing and publishing. I want to write quality software and take care of my customers. Assuming that I wrote an application that had reasonable success, there is a fair chance that I would want to sell the ownership rights of the app to another party and I'd use the proceeds to develop my next personal project which, in turn, I'd probably want to sell in the future. With that said, what are some general guidelines for creating, making and publishing an iOS project that I will eventually want to transfer to another company/developer? I know this is a bit of a broad question, but I request that the given advice be a general list of tips, suggestions and pitfalls to avoid. If any particular bullet point on your list needs more explanation, I'll either search for the answer or post a new question specific to that requirement. Thank you! Note Regarding this Question I am posting this question on Programmers.SO because I think that this is an issue of software architecting, seeking advice for setting a new application project and publishing a project to the Apple iOS store-- all within the requirements for questions on this site.

    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

  • Can I require a large donation ($499) in order for a company to receive an extended version of my open source project? [closed]

    - by Damian
    I want to make my project open source but some of its more advanced features are targeted to companies so I would like to require a donation before I send the source code to the donating company. It will be something like that: "If you want to use the extended features of XXXXXXX, please make a donation of $499 and you will receive the source code and the jar with the extended features. You will also receive personalized support by email." Is it legal and acceptable to do something like that? Can the companies donate an amount like that to an open source project? I mean, is it easy for them in terms of their accounting, tax, etc. to donate $499 dollars to an open source project. I know it is not a matter whether they will have money or not but more of a paying procedure matter.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >