Tag Info

New answers tagged

7

Personally I believe the best option would be to out-source the work (perhaps on Freelancer or something along those lines) so that you personally have the features you desire. Thereafter you can offer the patch back to the community, and it'll be their decision whether or not to adopt it. At the end of the day, this solution will be functional for you as ...


2

The goals of most companies is to increase the value of their shares, not to make the whole world better by contributing to open source projects and to help other developers by publishing tutorials. What you are doing at work should go in the same direction as the goals of your company. When you: Work on your project, Teach your colleagues, Improve the ...


1

I don't think either of those two is really more complex or more difficult than he other. I'd choose the one without the unnecessary pass branch, because that's an unnecessary branch. If you consider all the things that keep people from contributing to Open Source (it needs time, some programming ability, motivation, getting a Github account, making sense ...


3

Let's invert the logic here, to keep in the spirit of Demorgan's law: Would you want "programmers" to contribute to your project even though they have problems with elementary logic? Is that a net benefit to you? Or will they be time wastes? Does your project have enough volunteers to review their code?


1

You have to buy a "Code Signing Certificate". Vendors include Comodo or Godaddy, it costs about $150 to $200. You can make installation packages with it for 1 year. The installation package itself has no expiration date (also look up timestamp option). Some famous freeware products don't have certificates, but they are allowed through because lots of people ...


5

In general, anything a company creates for public consumption should be approved and peer reviewed. This is especially true outside of PR and advertising, the two areas where employees regularly produce items for mass consumption by the public regardless of the industry. While you had good intentions by producing training materials beneficial both to ...


2

There's no such major license, as FOSS licenses' primary goal is to maintain the "four freedoms" (or a part thereof for permissive licenses). Any restrictions on possible future functionality (apart from the odious DRM that Stallman banned in GPLv3, asserting it has no place in the future1) are seen as highly undesirable and are gonna condemn a license as ...


-2

My favorite key when working with a project that I've either had from inception to deployment or just looking at an example is F12. In most IDEs I'm aware of, it traces the object, method, or other bit of code to its source if it's user-defined. System language files display a header/interface, depending on which language you're working with. If the files ...


24

I haven't had this situation yet, but that's what I would try: Try contacting the owner Maybe they really lost interest, but are willing to transfer the project to somebody else, in particular someone who has already shown considerate commitment. But perhaps they are just occupied with something else (work, vacations, illness, other projects) and didn't ...


12

If the owner of the original repo is not found anywhere and absent for a considerable, I would publish my own repository as a different version of the project. With this, you take over the lead of development of the library, and don't leave it to die in a corner without being updated ever again. If the original owner ever closes the repo, the world still ...


2

Assuming you are the copyright holder for all the code, then yes you can do this. But as I understand things, no other entity will be able to compliantly create a derived work and distribute it because of the incompatibility of the licenses for the code and the "resources". This problem doesn't apply to you since you're the owner of the code and hence ...


1

TL;DR Canonical build or test files should always be included in the repository. Files that are expected to be customized by each developer should be included in a minimalist way within the repository, often in the form of example files. Reasons to Include a Baseline Guardfile Verbatim Files which are required to build or test your code base should be ...


0

Most permissive licenses would be suitable for your purpose, because a permissive license allows to combine the work with another and release it under any license you want. But keep in mind that some conditions might apply, like giving credit to the original authors. So make sure to read the license properly before considering it for use in your project. The ...


0

The standard way to apply a license to a software is to put the full license text in a file called LICENSE or COPYING included with the source code and then put a short notice in a comment at the top of each source file (naming the copyright date, holder, license and saying where to find the full text of the license). GPLv3 requires that if the program does ...


0

I am not a lawyer. You should get one, if you are concerned about possible legal issues. You have to include a copyright notice (a ‘manifesto’, if you will) to each file that contains your work. That ‘manifesto’ shall consist of: A line Copyright © <years> <owner>. Where <years> are years when this very file was created and ...


2

The Creative Commons Attribution license is a "open" license. It gives you the right to use and modify the data in any way you see fit, as long as you give proper attribution to the source of the data. Migrating the data to a different database engine would be fine. For the other data sources, you need to check on a case-by-case basis if their license ...


6

If you want to remain free in which license to choose for your own parts of the application, you can use libraries with any license that doesn't try to extend its scope to the entire program, but is limited to the library in question. So, the licenses that you must avoid are strong copyleft licenses, such as GPL and AGPL. If you want to use a library with ...


3

Copyright licenses specify if and under which conditions you can make modifications to something that is created by someone else and if and under what conditions you can distribute the original or modified versions. The default copyright 'license' is "all rights reserved", which means that only the original author is allowed to make changes and distribute ...


0

It is mainly for practical reasons that copyright protection is applied on the level of files and not on change-sets. First of all, most of the copyright law and the ideas encased in it stem from an era far before electronic copies existed. In those days there was no effective mechanism to make changes to a copyrighted work and only distribute those ...


5

It's because the modifications are legally considered a derivative work, because they build on and depend on the work already done. This protects the original authors against someone adding a popular new feature that builds on their work, but then making that feature closed source. If authors wish to allow closed-source extensions to their software, they ...


2

I think you are confusing licensing and copyright. Each contributor to a shared project without copyright assignment only owns the copyright over their own contributions, in other words copyright over each diff they produce. A contributor would only own the copyright over a whole file if nobody else contributed to that file. As a result, most files have ...


3

Probably because the end users are using your files, not your diffs, and licenses are supposed to be distributed along with your software (whether in source or binary or some other form). You don't distribute your software as a series of annotated diffs, do you? There may also be a legal reason, but that's a question for a different website.



Top 50 recent answers are included