Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

LGPL say that you have to make it available, not that you must pass it along with every binary. just give a contact email for the source and auto reply with a link where you got the library from originally if you didn't modify it or a link to a zip in a dropbox with the modifications.


3

Your code is your own. Generated code is also your code. While Microsoft may have built the mechanism to output it, it is no more owned by them than a brochure your company prints is owned by HP. Using an IDE to write your code does not make the IDE developers own it. Note, however, that your code is, more accurately, your employer's if you create it on ...


1

The most low tech solution I can think of: Use a program like Diff or Meld (or whatever you like) to view the differences between the latest version of the program and the latest fully translated version. This makes the differences a lot clearer to see than manually checking the files, whilst not being too technically challenging. This is assuming all the ...


3

There are lots of cases of consumer devices using GPL'd firmware. TiVo was the big name one because certain people were annoyed that even though TiVo released their changes, you couldn't take that and make your own changes and put it on your TiVo because they locked their boxes. In fact that's what caused the "TiVo'isation" clause in the next version of ...


4

I recommend you review the needs and decide on what tools need to be common. For example you can't have some people using svn and others using git when there is a lot of code sharing. However when it comes to editors, differences may be ok. The time, cost and motivation for people to switch tools that are essentially about preferences is often not worth ...


16

I think you answered your own question; whilst you'd like to use 1 tool, "a lot" of your colleagues prefer to use something else. Without a 'boss' to decide tooling, the majority rules and you need to go with the preferred tool. Now, there's no reason why you can't try to engage with them in discussion of tooling. You will have to take the initiative and ...


4

Every project needs some kind of central leadership to call the shots and make decisions like that. In a company, this is usually the project leader appointed by management. In a large open source community, the leadership is often some kind of meritocratic community process where every participant can make suggestions and an expert group votes on them. ...


2

First, the standard disclaimer: IANAL but a random stranger. I have been packaging an AGPL application(*) recently. It uses third party libraries distributed under jQuery, MIT, BSD (and some other) licenses. Here is how I have proceeded. My main intents when I designed this were: be compliant and be fair. While the first one should be sufficient, the ...


2

As a general rule, if you don't distribute someone else's code you are not obliged by any of its licence terms when you distribute your own. The liability comes at the point where the code is actually merged. Assume that A writes and distributes code for B to use, and that A's program uses code written by C but A does not distribute any of it. Then the ...


0

Note that the answer depends in large part on the terms under which the open-source project accepts your code. Most will, at the very least, have a statement saying that by contributing it you have granted the project rights to use, distribute, etc. your contribution, and granted all the project's users rights to look at and execute your code. That doesn't ...


5

Everybody holds the copyright to the code they write. Which means by default the original author is the only person who can grant a license for that code. As open source project typically have many authors it is not feasible to track down all authors and get them to agree every time a licensing change needs to be made. To avoid this problem some open source ...


13

Each author retains copyright to their code. If the project is under the GPL, contributing the code requires that the code is licensed under the GPL. If you want to do something else with the code like releasing it in a different license, you'd need the permission of the original author. For many projects, the project owner requires contributors to assign ...


10

The copyright holder. By default, that's the author of the code in question (each individual author if there are many). Copyright can be assigned to someone else, and some open source projects do require copyright assignment as a condition of contributing.


1

The whole point of open source is that you don't have to reinvent the wheel. But you do need to understand the licenses of the libraries you use. Just including a library doesn't mean you have to use the same license for your project. But if you change the code in a library you would have to use a compatible license. For example, I can use a LGPL library ...


4

Xml Parsers are not something you should be building yourself, unless you want to for learning purposes or to make something specific for your needs. XML parsers are complicated enough that other folks already know how to write one better than you or I could (within a reasonable time frame). One of the reasons for using XML is that libraries to read and ...


3

X-Windows is licensed under the MIT License, which is a permissive license. Its only requirement appears to be that you include a copy of the MIT license, and do not restrict others from using the X-Windows software in any way they see fit. The MIT License doesn't require you to make your own software open-source, nor does it prevent you from closing the ...


2

You asked for a definition: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). If you either (a) merge an OSS work into yours or (b) modify an OSS work and then distribute the result with yours, you are caught by this definition. ...


1

From a copyright standpoint, a program that is statically linked to a library is a derived work of that library. The reasoning to reach that conclusion is as follows: The (binary) code of the library is physically contained in the program when the library is statically linked. This makes the (binary) program a derived work of the (binary) library. The ...



Top 50 recent answers are included