Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

56

I believe on the contrary that you should release an open source software as soon as possible. There is no "too soon" for that (but it should compile). Or at least publish the source code very early and continuously (e.g. by frequent pushes on github), without making formal releases. However, it is very important to flag it as alpha or beta stage, and if ...


30

TL;DR: Release Early. Release Often. Personal anecdote: I was really excited about the project I was working on. Like, really excited. I couldn't sleep at night excited. So, I pushed my co-dev into releasing v1.0 faster than he wanted to. It was terrible. Nothing worked the way it was supposed to. There were bugs at every turn, but we logged them and ...


16

In general, the legalities in licensing that can occur as a result of the use of open-source software boil down to two factors: Commercial use, and Distribution. Distribution means "conferring" software to a third party outside the organization. Since you say you only use the software internally, legal mechanisms like "copyleft" (the term used for the ...


15

You are trying to let the research commmunity benefit by having them be able to do what you do, without having them be able what you do. That sounds like you haven't really made a principled choice yet. Software solutions like that in open source software aren't likely to work: the code is open source, after all. The first thing other institutions will do ...


11

It is the same as with closed source software. Communication is important. Inform users what the state of the software is and why it is available for download. Software will always lead to customer issues, no matter if it is fully tested or not. Most customers do accept that fact, and some customers never do. But if the software will lead to more issues ...


10

There is no license that does not claim copyright of the work. Those are two contradictory concepts. The ability to grant permission to create derivative works and distribute is what the copyright provides the original copyright holder. The license allows you to do these things. Setting that aside... Licenses that don't require attribution and provide the ...


7

There is no moral responsibility whatsoever. No one is being forced to use your half-baked software. The only thing to be concerned about would be your credibility.


6

There are some things to be aware off: First, your company lawyers may get a fit if you use third party code without asking them. So you shouldn't use any third party code without telling your boss or manager and getting their consent. As you said, you are not a lawyer. Second, a nasty one: If you find code on the internet, and it has some license, you ...


5

Verify that the open source you are using does not contain a "copyleft"* provision, or any other condition that prevents you from using a closed-source license, and then use a closed-source license. That's it. Note that the license you choose does not change the terms of the licenses of the open source code you are using in your project. If those terms ...


5

My experience is that there's a balance to be achieved. Right now, I'm working (in the sense of answering questions and providing development suggestions, without seeing any code) with a developer who's producing what looks to be a very exciting FOSS project that utilizes code I've written. The public release has been repeatedly delayed by realizations of ...


4

There is very little you can do to limit what others will do with your source code. They can make another module from scratch that can unlock the multiprocessing capability, or even improve it: it will cost time and expertise but if it is important to them, they will do it. With ten years head start, you still have the opportunity to use your experience and ...


3

Is there a known open-source license where the user who reuses or redistributes the code is not required to give credit to the author? Sure ... lots of them! This is actually the same as just assuming copyright to the collection but placing the contents on the public domain. I don't know where you got that notion from. It is completely wrong ... ...


3

This can't really be done. The idea behind open source is that the source is open, in other words, people will have access to it. From Wikipedia: In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, ...


3

Licenses in this category include: WTFPL - Due to its language, some people think it's not a valid license; I've also heard lawyers say that it's not a good license because it lacks an indemnity clause. Many licenses in the general category of Beerware - In some variations, the only real license stipulation is "if we meet, feel free to buy me a beer." ...


3

According to the Open Source Initiative, no. In order for a license to be considered open source, there are 10 clauses. One of them is that an open source license can not discriminate against a person or group: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. The Free Software Foundation also provides a description of free ...


2

Possible? Yes. You should be able to download a word list (example) and compare each word's first five letters with your string, however it isn't going to be very efficient. IMHO. If you need to check more than a few words, then it may be useful to look into optimizations. For example, you could precompute a giant HashMap which contains all valid 5 letter ...


1

The "industry standard" method is Black Scholes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model The "computer implementations" section of the article has pointers to actual implementations you can play with.


1

It is impossible to give up ownership of copyright in the United States, and most other countries. You have it, whether you want to or not, and you can't give it up, whether you want to or not. The most permissive thing you can do, is release it under something like the creative commons public domain dedication, usually abbreviated to CC-0: ...


1

Your question looks like career advice so might be off-topic here. I am sometimes working on free software, but I am not an expert on that. First, most major (or large and significant) free software (Linux kernel, GCC compiler, Firefox browser) are mostly (but not entirely) developed by paid professionals. In other words, the idea that major free software ...


1

There is one case when releasing free software can have negative consequences. Some specifications are licensed to the public on the condition that all implementations distributed to the public shall conform to the specification completely when first published. The publisher legally forbids you from distributing a work-in-progress implementation of the spec. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible