Search Results

Search found 19188 results on 768 pages for 'microsoft licensing'.

Page 23/768 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

• Do you think asking to sign contributor license agreement for a open source project creates a resistance for contributors?

  - by Appu

  I am working on a open-source project which is backed by an organization. Organization pays a team to make this open-source project. This project will be licensed with GPLv3. We are debating on having a CLA for contributors. Do you think mandating a CLA will reduce the number of contributors? I have observed that people have no issues in signing a CLA when the project is really popular. So do you think CLA will create a resistance to contribute?

  Read the article

• Most appropriate OSS license for infrastructure code

  - by Richard Szalay

  I'm looking into potentially releasing some infrastructure code (related to automated builds and deployments) as OSS and I'm curious about how the various OSS licenses effect it. Specifically, LGPL prevents the code itself (part/whole) being modified into a commercial product (which is what I'm after), but allows it to be "linked to" in the creation of commercial products (also ok). How does the "linked to" clause relate to infrastructure code, which is not deployed with the product itself? Would the application still be required to provide "appropriate legal notices" (which I'm not fussed over)? Would I be better off looking at the Eclipse Public License?

  Read the article

• Open source license with backlink requirement

  - by KajMagnus

  I'm developing a Javascript library, and I'm thinking about releasing it under an open source license (e.g. GPL, BSD, MIT) — but that requires that websites that use the software link back to my website. Do you know about any such licenses? And how have they formulated the attribution part of the license text? Do you think this BSD-license would do what you think that I want? (I suppose it doesn't :-)) [...] 3. Each website that redistributes this work must include a visible rel=follow link to my-website.example.com, reachable via rel=follow links from each page where the software is being redistributed. (For example, you could have a link back to your homepage, and from your homepage to an About-Us section, which could link to a Credits section) I realize that some companies wouldn't want to use the library because of legal issues with interpreting non-standard licenses (have a look at this answer: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/156859/54906). — After half a year, or perhaps some years, I'd change the license to plain GPL + MIT.

  Read the article

• Releasing a project under GPL v2 or later without the source code of libraries

  - by Luciano Silveira

  I wrote a system in Java that I want to release under the terms of GPL v2 or later. I've used Apache Maven to deal with all the dependencies of the system, so I don't have the source code of any of the libraries used. I've already checked, all the libraries were released under GPL-compatible licenses (Apache v2, 3-clause BSD, MIT, LGPL v2 and v2.1). I have 3 questions about this scenario: 1) Can I release a package with only the binaries of code I wrote, not including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 2) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 3) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote plus the source code of the libraries licensed under the LGPL license?

  Read the article

• Does this BSD-like license achieve what I want it to?

  - by Joseph Szymborski

  I was wondering if this license is: self defeating just a clone of an existing, better established license practical any more "corporate-friendly" than the GPL too vague/open ended and finally, if there is a better license that achieves a similar effect? I wanted a license that would (in simple terms) be as flexible/simple as the "Simplified BSD" license (which is essentially the MIT license) allow anyone to make modifications as long as I'm attributed require that I get a notification that such a derived work exists require that I have access to the source code and be given license to use the code not oblige the author of the derivative work to have to release the source code to the general public not oblige the author of the derivative work to license the derivative work under a specific license Here is the proposed license, which is just the simplified BSD with a couple of additional clauses (all of which are bolded). Copyright (c) (year), (author) (email) All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions of source code. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions in binary form The copyright holder(s) must be granted access to the source code and/or the binary form of any redistribution upon the copyright holder's request. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

  Read the article

• How did craigspro license Craigslist content? [closed]

  - by Joshua Frank

  There's an app called craigspro that provides a much better interface to Craigslist on mobile devices. They claim that the app is Officially Licensed by Craigslist, but I thought Craigslist never licensed their content, and the only thing I can find on the subject in the terms of use is this: Any copying, aggregation, display, distribution, performance or derivative use of craigslist or any content posted on craigslist whether done directly or through intermediaries (including but not limited to by means of spiders, robots, crawlers, scrapers, framing, iframes or RSS feeds) is prohibited. As a limited exception, general purpose Internet search engines and noncommercial public archives will be entitled to access craigslist without individual written agreements executed with CL that specifically authorize an exception to this prohibition if ... Does anyone know how do get a "written agreement" with Craigslist, and roughly what their terms would be? Do they charge a fee, or just check that you're not evil? I'll try next with Craigslist directly, but I'd like to get a sense of the landscape before stumbling in.

  Read the article

• How to monetize and/or protect framework rights?

  - by Arthur Wulf White

  I made a game engine/framerwork for ActionScript 3 that allows very efficient and flexible level design for Platformers, Tower Defense game, RPG's, RTS and racing games. The algorithms I used are new and are not available in any other level editor I've seen. What are the best ways to benefit myself and others with my new framework? It is written for ActionScript 3 so unless I translate it to C# I'm guessing it will be decompiled and used by others. I want to have some lisence, allowing me to share the framework and still benefit from it. Any advice would be appreciated. This issue has been on my mind a lot this year. I am hoping to find a solution that will bring me some relief.

  Read the article

• MIT and copyright

  - by Petah

  I am contributing to a library that is licensed under the MIT license. In the license and in each class file it has a comment at the top saying: Copyright (c) 2011 Joe Bloggs <[email protected]> I assume that he owns the copyright to the file, and can change the license of that file as he sees fit. If I contribute to the library with a new class entirely write by me, can I claim copyright of that file. And put: Copyright (c) 2011 Petah Piper <[email protected]> at the top?

  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

• Rewriting GPL code to change license

  - by I_like_traffic_lights

  I have found a GPL library (no dual license), which does exactly what I need. Unfortunately, the GPL license on the library is incompatible with the license of a different library I use. I have therefore decided to rewrite the GPL library, so the license can be changed. My question is: How extensive do the changes need to be to the library in order to be able to change the license? In other words, what is the cheapest way to do this?

  Read the article

• 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

• Using Domain name in EULA of a software rather than my name in the Licensor field

  - by user17330

  I intend to sell a software solution.I have already registered a domain but i dont have a registered company.Can i use my website/domain name eg:myproduct.com for the licensor field in the EULA rather than using myname.I will renew my domain yearly is there a problem with this.Do you know any software companies that work like this.Im confused about the users point of view will they find it a bit different. Please help me out.

  Read the article

• How do you track third-party software licenses?

  - by emddudley

  How do you track licenses for third-party libraries that you use in your software? How did you vet the licenses? Sometimes licenses change or libraries switch licenses--how do you stay up to date? At the moment I've got an Excel spreadsheet with worksheets for third-party software, licenses, and the projects we use them on (organized like a relational database). It seems to work OK, but I think it will go out-of-date pretty quickly.

  Read the article

• LGPL License in commercial application

  - by Jacob

  I have searched around but I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer on my questions that I understand. I want to use the Xuggler library in my application, which is licensed either GPL or LGPL depending on whether I compile it myself. I don't intend to edit the library If I compile it myself and thus get a LGPL version of the library, can I use it in a commercial application without having to distribute the source code of my application? Furthermore, do I have to give my application the LGPL license as well? What other problems might using this library give me?

  Read the article

• Did Oracle make public any plans to charge for JDK in the near future? [closed]

  - by Eduard Florinescu

  I recently read an article: Twelve Disaster Scenarios Which Could Damage the Technology Industry which mentioned among other the possible "disaster scenarios" also: Oracle starts charging for the JDK, giving the following as argument: Oracle could start requiring license fees for the JDK from everyone but desktop users who haven't uninstalled the Java plug-in for some reason. This would burn down half the Java server-side market, but allow Oracle to fully monetize its acquisitions and investments. [...] Oracle tends to destroy markets to create products it can fully monetize. Even if you're not a Java developer, this would have a ripple effect throughout the market. [...] I actually haven't figured out why Larry hasn't decided Java should go this route yet. Some version of this scenario is actually in my company's statement of risks. I know guessing for the future is impossible, and speculating about that would be endless so I will try to frame my question in an objective answarable way: Did Oracle or someone from Oracle under anonymity, make public, or hinted, leaked to the public such a possibility or the above is plain journalistic speculation? I am unable to find the answer myself with Google generating a lot of noise by searching JDK.

  Read the article

• Nothing gets displayed when debugging Microsoft Surface

  - by leftend

  I am trying to write my first Microsoft Surface application, and am doing the development on the Surface unit itself. I successfully re-created the quick "Photos" application that is shown on the PDC Video, however, now that I'm trying to create my own app - nothing actually shows up when I run it. I'm mainly just adding ScatterViews right now - and they show up fine in the designer, but as soon as I hit F5 - the shell is shown on the surface - but none of the ScatterViews show up. Here's my xaml code so far. Am I missing something?? <s:SurfaceWindow x:Class="SurfaceUITreeDemo.TreeDemo" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:s="http://schemas.microsoft.com/surface/2008" Title="WYITT Tree Demo" AllowsTransparency="False" Background="Beige"> <s:SurfaceWindow.Resources> <ImageBrush x:Key="WindowBackground" Stretch="None" Opacity="0.6" ImageSource="pack://application:,,,/Resources/TreeDemoBackground.jpg"/> </s:SurfaceWindow.Resources> <Grid Background="{StaticResource WindowBackground}" > <s:ScatterView Name="test"> <Image Source="C:\dev\Network-Alt-icon.png"/> </s:ScatterView> <s:ScatterView Height="100" Margin="456,160,348,0" Name="scatterView1" VerticalAlignment="Top" Background="Black"> <s:ScatterViewItem Height="100" Width="150"> <Image Source="C:\dev\Network-Alt-icon.png"/> </s:ScatterViewItem> <s:ScatterViewItem></s:ScatterViewItem> ScatterView </s:ScatterView> </Grid> </s:SurfaceWindow>

  Read the article

• Incorporating GPL Code in my Open Source Project

  - by rutherford

  I have downloaded a currently inactive GPL project with a view to updating it and releasing the completed codebase as open source. I'm not really a fan of GPL though and would rather licence my project under BSD. What are my options? Is it just a case of keeping any existing non-touched code under the GPL and any updated stuff can be BSD (messy)? The source will essentially be the same codebase i.e. there is no logical separation between the two and they certainly can't be split into anything resembling different libraries. Are my only realistic options to either GPL the whole thing or seek the original author's permission to release everthing under BSD?

  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

• 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

• 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

• How to monetize and protect a engine's and its framework's copyrights and patents?

  - by Arthur Wulf White

  I created a game engine that handles: Rendering levels with 2d textured curved surfaces Collisions with curved surfaces Animationn paths on and navigation in 2d-sapce I have also made a framework for: Procedural organic level generation with round surfaces Level editing Light weight sprite design The engine and framework are written in AS3 and I am in the process of translating the code into HaXe to better support other platforms. I am also interested in adding Animated curved platforms More advanced level editing features Currently, I have a part time job and any time I spend on this engine is either taken out of my limited free time (I'm a student working to support myself through school) or out my time working at my job. I really believe this engine can make life much easier for people designing Tower Defence games, Shooters and and Platformers while also possibly improving their results. It could also support RTS, RPGs and racing games very well. It continains original algorithms that could be used for procedural generation of organic round and smooth levels. The algorithms I used are new and are not available in any other level editor I've seen. In order to constantly improve the Engine and have it tested thoroughly I think the best route is releasing it to the public. What are the best ways to benefit myself and others with my new framework? I want to have some lisence, allowing me to share the framework and still benefit from it. Any advice would be appreciated. This issue has been on my mind a lot this year. I am hoping to find a solution that will bring me some relief. I am thinking of designing three sample games, releasing them and starting a kickstarter, any advice and thoughts on the matter would be valuable. My goal is like Markus von Broady suggested, to get people involved in developing the engine and let people use it for games for either a symbolic fee or for free and charge for support. That or use some form of croud sourcing. Do I need to hire a lawyer to get some sort of legal document to protect my work?

  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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >