Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

You may indicate to Closure Compiler to preserve copyright/license info by using @license syntax, as shown in the documentation: /** * @preserve Copyright 2009 SomeThirdParty. * Here is the full license text and copyright * notice for this file. Note that the notice can span several * lines and is only terminated by the closing star and ...


1

Honestly, these aren't questions best posed to programmers. Almost all of the issues you raise are matters of contract and intellectual property law. Consult a local lawyer who is familiar with the software industry in your jurisdiction. If you don't have a written agreement with your client (very foolish), s/he will be able to advise you of the “defaults” ...


2

To start with the paragraph in all-caps ("THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ..."), that is called a disclaimer. These kinds of disclaimers are very common for software and their purpose is that if you get hit by a problem that could be caused by software package X, then you can't ...


2

In addition to the points that @MichealT made ... If what you were doing was (hypothetically) a breach of the GPL, the License is actually between you and the MySQL copyright holders (i.e. Oracle). Your customer has no right under law to demand that the license terms be enforced. It would be up him to persuade Oracle to do that. That means that Oracle's ...


8

The GPL does not require that you GPL license any software that connects to MySQL (When are you required to have a commercial MySQL license?). If you just have your database sitting there, and connect to it, and could swap out the MySQL database for MariaDB, or PostgreSQL, or Oracle, or what have you your application is not a derived work of MySQL and does ...


2

The standard solution is dual licence. Release under GPL, retain the original copyright and when you're ready re-release under some different licence. Profit! However, if you want to stop people from using your code to provide a commercial service, you will almost certainly need a custom licence. Likely terms will include: free for private and ...


2

The title of the question says you need a small(??) commercial addition while in the question text you say that you don't want to allow people to earn money using your work. This seems to be contradictory. Here are some ideas that can help you: If you are a creator you have the copyright on the code then you can publish your project under multiple ...


1

Q1. Nothing. A user can merge X and L as long as they comply with all licence requirements. Q2. No good. The owners of X are now in control and are performing a merge on-site, which brings them under the L licensing terms. But there is room for a lawyer's picnic. Q3. Still falls under the merge provisions. Q4. Dynamic language: no change. Depends where ...


0

Ignoring licensing, it is generally preferable to provide at least one version of your script that includes none of its external dependencies. Some libraries include a wide variety of wrappers and bundles (e.g., HistoryJS) to make things easier on their users. Complicated sites may or may not already include dependencies (and not necessarily the same ...


5

From the standpoint of the FSF, program X can not be distributed at all. The reasoning here is that if Program X needs Library L to function and they don't communicate at arms length (separate processes that communicate through an inter-process interface or files), then the GPL applies to Program X as well. If Program X isn't licensed under a GPL-compatible ...


-1

There are two important factors you did not mention. Do you want to retain copyright for future benefit to you, or is this purely community? Do you want to make money out of this, or will you compete with someone who does? The basic breakdown is this. If you make no money out of it and harm no-one then just do your best, acknowledge the work of others ...


1

How should I best handle these dependencies without violating the license? If you would packaging your dependency modules, you should only ensure to mantain the MIT requirements The MIT License is a free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It is a permissive free software license, meaning that it ...


0

The only real "easy" ways to comply with "all" open source licenses is to never distribute your code, or make it accessible by the public. Absent that, there is no technique that will allow you to ensure compliance with all of the various OSS requirements without understanding them. Hoverer, you may be overestimating the amount of work it would be to read, ...


1

#include <ianal.h> Document style licenses are often a poor fit for source code. Of these, the ones that are a gift (and that is a word with legal implications) are the most problematic. Public domain, as seen in the US, is a gift. In particular, a gift may be revoked for any reason. This makes something that is in the public domain possibly ...


1

Software distribution happens when you make a copy of software and give that copy to someone else for their use. If the software remains under your ownership and control and you give it to someone acting as your agent to carry out your instructions that is not distribution. You don't have to list everything and you never could. Just acknowledge a few of the ...


0

I regret to say that I think your question as asked is conflicted. If you genuinely want to maximise the ways in which people can utilise your code then you must (among other things) allow and encourage them to take that code and pretend it's theirs. If you don't want to require any kind of attribution then you must in effect disclaim authorship as well as ...


0

Convert the hexadecimal number to base 36. Example here. According to that page, Your input yields 1DWCLWKQZK16WMKIIEYVLLXA9E4OQ64P80KDOH4ALCYRCYCTKRUHQRXTM6HLDEV78E6APXQV1JG in base 36. Here is a Stack Overflow question that has an arbitrary base conversion function in c# (alas, couldn't get the online converter to properly convert it to VB). ...


1

Sounds like you need a "licenses.txt" file or similar in which you place suitable text, wording similar to suggested by Robert Harvey. If you have a GUI you can have a Help->About menu item, which might have a nice display in which you can click a button "licenses" that in turn opens a window showing the licenses.txt file - or whatever other method you ...


1

My reading is that those quotes you provide from the guide are written by someone with a less than perfect grasp of copyright and software licensing issues, and possibly other motivations. Your rights in using any piece of software not owned by you are strictly governed by the licence you hold for that software. If the actual licence that accompanies the ...


3

Closed source means the same thing for server-side software as for all other kinds of software: The source code is not available to the users of the software (or only under very restrictive conditions). If you write software that communicates over a network with other software, then your choice of license for your software is not affected by the copyright ...


3

There is a good, long, accepted answer already. This is a short answer. Yes, as the sole copyright owner you can change the licence for all future distributions. You cannot change history. Yes, if you have ever distributed binaries without source code under GPL then the obligation to provide source code of that version to those who relied on it is ...


4

The MIT license is a very permissive license. You can do just about anything with software that is covered by the MIT license except for removing the copyright and license information. So, yes you can create a GUI front-end for moment.js and you are not even restricted in your choice of license for the front-end.


11

There are two cases in which it is possible to effectively change the copyright license on existing code. The existing copyright license gives you the right to change the license or to sub-license the code. The GPL licenses do not fall in this category of licenses. You are one of the copyright holders on the code and all copyright holders explicitly agree ...


3

As you copied parts of the other library into your library, the authors/copyright holders of the parts you copied must also be mentioned as (joint) copyright holders of your library. For that reason, neither option is correct. A correct way to provide the right copyright and license informations is Copyright 2014 <original author names>, <new ...


1

This licence does not itself exclude a paid distribution of any kind. It is provided to you without fee or royalty, but imposes no restriction on whether you in turn do or do not charge fees or royalties for your software. This licence is also unaffected by any other licences that may be in effect for other parts of your software. It is plain, simple and ...


3

Bat files execute and do not link. Yes you can execute GPLed code from non-GPLed code. The only thing you will need to do is if you distribute FART, make sure you distribute it's source code as well. See semantic A/V for a popular example. Or many video games. As long as you give credit and don't violate the rules about distributing binaries without ...


2

Seek legal advice in your jurisdiction. Seriously, because the cases and laws are all over the place... I perviously delved into the question of font licenses in Can I use a @font-face of "Courier New"? - and while much of that answer is about the font Courier, it exposed things like 'typefaces aren't copyrightable in the US'. Much about this is ...


2

According to the FSF's page Various Licenses and Comments about Them: W3C Software Notice and License This is a free software license and is GPL compatible. Futhermore, the W3C license is OSI approved. As an open source software license, it cannot impose restrictions on field of endeavor, which includes permission to sell the software. This does ...


0

In my view the definitions would be those used by the relevant copyright law. The law is quite careful about definitions of things, and if you had a font embedded in a work that fitted the definition of "program" then the law regarding "program" would be what would apply. Trying to call a "program" a "document" would not help. As always, if you make no ...


5

Speaking as a layman, not a lawyer, the answer is that it doesn't forbid that. The key phrase is "for any purpose". This is plain, simple legal english. Also ... consider the context. Why would the W3C forbid use of their code in commercial software? It is not in their remit to push the "libre source" philosophy. It would be counter-productive to their ...



Top 50 recent answers are included