Tag Info

New answers tagged

4

Legally, you're almost certainly fine (assuming the changes you offered are yours to offer). The author provided the source, and shouldn't be surprised if people use it and/or improve on it. The only reasonable restriction would be on distribution, and even that is probably not an issue in your case. (But ask the author before you host the code somewhere, ...


0

A well-written API wrapper or a bot is an example of a simple project that may use "advanced" features and have high coding standards. For example, PRAW is a popular Python wrapper for reddit. I've not had too much experience with it, but knowing what I do about its development, it's a decent sized module that is complex enough to feature many trappings of ...


2

I recently discovered Intercom, which uses local storage to implement broadcast messaging between windows. Local storage fires an event (onstorage) when data changes, so no polling is necessary. Intercom allows all pages on a domain to communicate, regardless of how they were opened.


1

The License The relevant part: (A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or ...


0

It's a grey area between "written a programming language" and "written a set of libraries that provide abstraction with a bespoke API". The second is definitely sell-able. Arguably the first is the second. The thing is we would need to know more, but conditionally I would say yes. As long as the abstractions is something useful to a business case. For ...


0

It can. If it is: good and/or useful enough if it is applicable easy enough and if it isn't too expensive Actually - for starters it should be really strong on 2 first items and very discounted compared to its real worth. I see most of people complain about evil managers which won't like to pay big cash for it - you never said your friend is asking a ...


0

That depends whether or not the language offers something that is ingenious enough that I (representing the customer) am willing to pay money for it. As a project manager I need to take into consideration: The time it takes to learn/master that new language. The efficiency gain (time till delivery) compared to other languages. And does it out-weight the ...


5

A language cannot be closed-source. Its compiler and run-time libraries can be closed-source. A formal grammar of a language can be kept as a secret though and be legally protected (NDAs, etc.) and fees collected for usage. Your friend could claim intellectual property or patent if the language is so new and novel. I myself have high doubt that this would ...


3

I've had this discussion myself when one of my clients considered developing major applications using ColdFusion. Personally I can't think of any reason to use CF (and pay for it) when I can use PHP (and not pay for it). However, CF has a large company behind it which pacifies the OSS-phobiacs (deal with enough IT managers and you're bound to run across some ...


1

While I hate to discourage your friend I think it's unlikely that he'll manage to convince people to pay for development tools these days unless this tool provides an incredibly huge gain in productivity (as in "produces working software by having managers look cross-eyed at the screen while thinking good thoughts!!!"). For better or worse there is very ...


2

I think the answer is a definite no in this case. Having a new language driven by a small entity causes a high risk of critical bugs or key features missing. If that language is proprietary, then as a user you're absolutely screwed if the language does not evolve in the direction you need it to at the pace you need it to. If the language is free, you can ...


19

A language isn't open-source or closed-source as such. For example, G++ is open source while MSVC++ is closed source. ISO C++ is neither, it's a non-free non-proprietary standard. Your friend could release an Open-Source non-optimizing implementation, and sell the fancy optimizing compiler. The interesting Intellectual Property is not going to be needed ...


9

The answer is yes, and no. It depends on the commercial motivations of potential customers and the attributes of the language and the problems it solves. No, the world does not need another general purpose computing language created by an individual or a small team. When Perl, Python, Ruby, Java and Javascript and were created there was a vacuum to fill, ...


12

I believe that no, there is no room for a new language with a proprietary implementation sold by a small company. First, developers have many other free (at least as "in beer", and often as "in speech") language implementations, and they won't bother trying a (pricy) language. Second, any manager would immediately objects: what would happen -to our code ...


16

Does his language do something that enough people will pay for? That's really the only thing that decides whether a business model will work. Do you have a large market of users who are large enough not to worry about licensing costs? Does the language support devices or standards that the customers can't live without, and that nothing else supports? Is it ...


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

#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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...



Top 50 recent answers are included