Search Results

Search found 4360 results on 175 pages for 'dual licensing'.

Page 28/175 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Is it OK to use sample code from blogs, GitHub, etc... in commercial applications?

    - by eterps
    When searching the web for a solution to a particular problem, I often find a perfect solution posted on someone's blog, or in a public repository (GitHub, Google Code). Most of the time, the code has no copyright information, nor does the author mention any sort of attribution rules. I'm pretty sure short snippets are fine, but what if I copy a handful of classes verbatim (again, no copyright notices, TOS, attribution requests, etc...)? Am I under any legal obligation to the original author?

    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

  • Does NASA license the software that it develops?

    - by Abe
    NASA provides a visualization software called Panoply. There is a Credits and Acknowledgments page that acknowledges and lists the licenses of software dependencies, but provides no information about its own license. I have looked at other software produced by NASA, including the source code for GISS and can not find any information about a licence. The closest information that I can find is in the FAQ for the global climate model EdGCM Global that says the code is in the "public domain" is it standard practice at NASA to release code into the public domain? are there exceptions? Can I assume that Panoply is public domain and can be used without restriction other than than those imposed by licenses of software dependencies? Is the absence of specific permission to reuse the code a concern (this issue was raised in the answer to a separate question) How common is this practice across government agencies?

    Read the article

  • how to contribute the same source code to two separate open-source projects?

    - by Jason S
    Let's say there are two similar open source projects A and B, both licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0. I would like to contribute an improvement to both projects (because I don't know which one is administered better, and I would like to see my improvement show up in both). Is there a way I can contribute this improvement to both projects in a simple way? (One obvious approach is to start an open source project C licensed under Apache 2.0, but that's a headache for various reasons; I don't want to maintain a project myself)

    Read the article

  • I created a program based on an LGPL project, and I'm not allowed to publish the source code

    - by Dave
    I thought LGPL was a permissive license, just like MIT, BSD or Apache. But today I read, that only linking to LGPL (libraries etc) is allowed from closed-source code - other than that, it's copyleft - so I have to publish code that is based on an LGPL program. I created a program for my employer that is based on an LGPL program, but has considerable modifications to it. Of course, I am not allowed to put that modified source code out there. At the same time, I have to, if I distribute it (right?). So I wonder whether there is a workaround to this, so I can keep this closed-source (I wish I could publish the source) - any suggestions? My idea: can I put most functions of the original LGPL app into an external library, write the core executable from scratch, but refer back to the library for all functions that I haven't modified? Currently, everything is in a .jar file (it's Java/Swing). if you think my idea is legally/technically feasible - how much effort would it be to seperate what I wrote and what the original is? I'm not the most java savvy.

    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

  • Software Licencing [closed]

    - by Craig
    A colleague of mine wanted a means to do something, so it was suggested that I write some software to do this. The software has turned into more than the original specification and is now something rather complex, however it is not fully functional still. My colleague has not paid me anything so far and I am unwilling to continue writing the software until some faith has been reciprocated in my direction, as I have put a lot of effort into writing the software. I am also unwilling to finish the software as I do not want to give away a huge chunk of my time and effort away as free, neither do I want to be under compensated for my efforts. Some concerns I have. If I finish the software, what if the client doesn't pay me anything or pays too little, or what if I write the software to a usable level, but not complete and the client pays me a too little. I have lost my motivation to finish the software, as more and more specifications have been added to the software and I have developed a substantially complex piece of software and been effectively paid nothing. To finish the software, I need motivation, money would do this, however the client doesn't want to pay for something that isn't complete, yet keeps adding more requirements. I seem to be in a catch 22 with this, as I have developed some software on faith and have had no faith reciprocated in my direction. I'm really not sure how to get some payment from the client or on how to develop a licencing model so that I get some money from the client and development resumes.

    Read the article

  • Understanding the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)

    - by J.r. Hounddog
    I'm looking at using a few open source products in a commercial software application I'm working on. One of them is licensed under MIT, which I understand as allowing commercial software linking. However, the other open source product is licensed under MS-PL but I don't understand if that license is fully compatible with commercial software. So the question is, can I use MS-PL licensed OSS in a commercial/proprietary/for-sale application? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • 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

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

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

    Read the article

  • Do you tend to write your own name or your company name in your code?

    - by Connell Watkins
    I've been working on various projects at home and at work, and over the years I've developed two main APIs that I use in almost all AJAX based websites. I've compiled both of these into DLLs and called the namespaces Connell.Database and Connell.Json. My boss recently saw these namespaces in a software documentation for a project for the company and said I shouldn't be using my own name in the code. (But it's my code!) One thing to bear in mind is that we're not a software company. We're an IT support company, and I'm the only full-time software developer here, so there's not really any procedures on how we should write software in the company. Another thing to bear in mind is that I do intend on one day releasing these DLLs as open-source projects. How do other developers group their namespaces within their company? Does anyone use the same class libraries in personal and in work projects? Also does this work the other way round? If I write a class library entirely at work, who owns that code? If I've seen the library through from start to finish, designed it and programmed it. Can I use that for another project at home? Thanks, Update I've spoken to my boss about this issue and he agrees that they're my objects and he's fine for me to open-source them. Before this conversation I started changing the objects anyway, which was actually quite productive and the code now suits this specific project more-so than it did previously. But thank you to everyone involved for a very interesting debate. I hope all this text isn't wasted and someone learns from it. I certainly did. Cheers,

    Read the article

  • Secure Open Source?

    - by opatachibueze
    I want to make a delicate application of mine (an antivirus actually) open source but I want to have a control on who really obtains the source or not. Preferably they should apply and I or administrators approve their applications. Is there any online platform for this? The main reason for the control/security is to possibly prevent malware makers to easily discover how to bypass the stealth checking methods it utilizes for malware detection. Edit: I am looking for advice - possibly to hear from someone who has done something similar. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there a cheaper non-express non-student, non-msdn version of Visual Studio 2010 that supports plugins in the US than the $710 Professional Edition?

    - by Justin Dearing
    I've never actually purchased a copy of Visual Studio myself. SharpDevelop and Express edition have always been good enough for my personal use, and my employers always furnished me with the IDEs I needed to serve them. However, I'm thinking of actually paying for a copy for my personal laptop. I need this mainly so I can open solutions that contain web projects. So my question is: Is there an edition cheaper than the $710 Pro edition on Amazon that will do what I need: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-C5E-00521-Visual-Studio-Professional/dp/B0038KTO8S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287456230&sr=8-2 ? What I need is defined as: Open up a solution with C#, Web App, VB.NET, and Web Projects. Install addins like resharper, testdriven.net, etc, SCM plugins, etc. Some level of db project support. At least to be able to open a dbproj. I only need that for SCM hooks. SSMS and SQLCMD are good enough for actually editing databases. Ability to install F#, IronPython, IronRuby etc. Now naturally I'm a fairly intelligent resourceful person so I realize I can get Visual Studio in a questionable manner. Thats not what I'm looking to do. I want a legal copy, I don't want a student copy, or an MSDN copy. I want a real copy, I just want to make sure I get the cheapest edition that serves my needs.

    Read the article

  • Can you change a license once you pick one?

    - by Adam
    I am working on a product that I don't feel is completely ready but I have a set of users that are very interested in using it now as "alpha" testers. I would like to give them the product now for free as "alpha" testers, but I would like to later license the software. Is this possible? Can anyone point me to any links/books/articles/etc? Thanks. EDIT: Due to the lack of my clarity and the reponses to the question I thought I should add this statement. I haven't decided if I am going to close-source or open-source this project yet. The user base that wants to get their hands on it now has kind of surprised me and I was concerned about what my options are as far as being able to give it to them now as open-source and later change to closed-source, or even vice versa. Thanks to everyone who has answered and commented. I appreciate it the insights.

    Read the article

  • Add in the header of the license type is enough to say: "my code is licensed"? (Open-source)

    - by silverfox
    I do not know if this is the correct place to ask this stackexchange. Note: If a moderator can move to the correct place (if I am in the inappropriate site SE) I read on various sites about licenses. I did just put the license type in the header file (in my case the javascript file - open-source). /* * "codeName" "version" * http://officialsite.com/ * * Copyright 2012 "codeName" * Released under the "LICENSE NAME" license * http://officialsite.com/LICENSE NAME */ javascript code ... In the same folder I leave a copy of the license. The listing of the folder looks like this: * codeName.js * LICENSE In the file LICENSE would leave my code uses. What nobody says is if it is enough to say my code is licensed (the case of an open-source). Or is something more required? Sorry for the bad English. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • License for library developed with commercial program

    - by Overv
    I'm developing a commercial application that largely depends on the functionality of a library that will be developed with it. I'd like to open-source this library, because it offers functionality that is not found elsewhere and can be useful in other applications. However, I will also use it in my own commercial application. I don't want to publish the source of the main application, but it is definitely not a derived work (think of calculator app using GPL licensed library to calculate sine). And if someone else commercially uses the library, I want to require them to publish any changes made. Is the GPL license suitable for this or is LGPL perhaps what I need?

    Read the article

  • Can i use aac in an commercial app for free?

    - by Jason123
    I was wondering if i can use the aac codec in my commercial app for free (through lgpl ffmpeg). It says on the wiki: No licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format.[36] This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format to distribute content than MP3, particularly for streaming content (such as Internet radio). However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs. For this reason free and open source software implementations such as FFmpeg and FAAC may be distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement. (See below under Products that support AAC, Software.) But the xSplit program had to cancel the AAC for free members because they have to pay royalties per person. Is this true (that you have to pay per each person that uses aac)? If you do have to pay, which company do you pay to and how does one apply?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >