24

As a pro, If your company's office burns down, the code is still on the server. If your company's office doesn't burn down, but the server on which your git repository is located DOES, then you still have a local copy. If you host your repository on your server in your company's office building (like you would with a Network shared drive...?), then if the ...


23

As long as you don't release the software to anyone while you are linking to GPL'd libraries, you are safe. The viral aspect of GPL only kicks in if you distribute your software. It would be better if you could find a library with a more permissive licence, of course, like LGPL or APL2 or MIT.


20

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 ...


20

The GPL writes: You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: So this condition only applies if your work is "based on" the library, which the licence defines as follows: To “modify” a work ...


19

In the year 2000, Borland released the code to its InterBase database software as open source. For weird corporate politics reasons, they quickly walked it back and decided that further development of InterBase would continue as a proprietary product, as it had before, and they were able to do that. As noted above, they were the copyright holder and they ...


18

Is that possible with me as the original copyright holder (with no one having contributed changes except me)? Yes, of course. It's your code, you can do whatever you want with it. Even if I release my program as open source, I am the copyright holder after all, am I? Yes, of course. If you weren't, you wouldn't be able to release it as open source, ...


17

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 ...


16

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 ...


15

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 ...


15

There is not copyleft provision in the MIT license. The MIT license gives you legal permission to use the code without ever distributing any of your source code. Since your project is closed source, very few people will ever see your code, but it is still a good idea to carefully document which portions are owned by someone else. For distributing binaries, ...


15

As the copyright holder, you can do whatever you wish with your own code. Nothing prevents you from closing your own source in your own projects, if you hold the copyright. Use whatever closed-source license your lawyers say is appropriate for your needs. Your existing GPL licenses should be unaffected. Note that you cannot close the source of any code ...


14

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 ...


12

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

Obviously its a question of trust in the provider and how much you value your source code. However, I thinks its clear that, at least in the past, people over valued their source code. For 'business process automation' products; where an in house team creates websites and other software specifically for the needs of the business. The value of that software ...


11

Yes. You can use BSD-licensed projects in closed-source, commercial projects. You must include the original copyright and license. From WikiPedia's BSD License page: The BSD License allows proprietary use and allows the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a ...


11

This is called obfuscation. What it does is that it performs a series of operations which don't affect the execution of the source code, but make it more difficult to read of a human. For example, here are some commonly used obfuscation techniques: Remove whitespace. Remove comments. Replace meaningful names of variables and members by names such as a, b, ...


9

For open-sourcing your code for others to use, you're right that GPL will make sure that people can't create closed source derivatives. GPL will force them to share their derivatives under the same GPL licence. Bear in mind though that GPL might put others off using your code. If they make any use of your GPL code in their project (for example linking to ...


8

I don't think your question is actually about the GPL. It's about the prototype and whether it will be used in the future as the basis for the deliverable software system. If you're making a throwaway prototype and you are not going to reuse any of the code in your deliverable system, then go ahead and use a GPL library. Three Approaches You Can Take ...


7

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Consult your copyright attorney if you want clarification on any of these issues. uses a statically linked class licensed under "GNU GPL v2 or any later" (modified by adding a few properties (just getters, a couple of lines)) The GPL requires that you re-release the source code for any changes you've made ...


7

As the original copyright holder and no one else holding the copyright to any portions of the project, you can choose to close-source a later version. You can also choose to change the license on previously released versions. It won't stop anyone from using the version(s) under the license they received it under, though.


6

So, after some research, here's my own answer. NOT LEGAL ADVICE, and even as layman advice, I am not an expert in the subject. If you are creating a product to be sold, it's best to play it safe. Downloading all source packages for all installed packages is so simple, and with current storage capacities it takes so little space, that there is just no reason ...


6

Either it's open, or it's not. If the skin is restricted to "just your project", then it is, by definition, not open. If, then, your project were to include this skin, by extension it wouldn't be open either. You have two options: a) Go with a proprietary but free-as-in-beer license. One that allows people to use the software, but not redistribute in ...


6

There is at least one major error in your question: In an REST backend the business logic still is on the server. It has to and having business logic in the browser would be pure madness. From there we can go on and see that the most complex part of any serious web app rests on the server anyway. The browser can only take the View part of the MVC, maybe a ...


6

1) Yes, if you put license L1 on your program P1, then P1 is licensed under L1, and that's it. However, it is possible that you are not legally allowed to use license L1. In particular, if one of your dependencies has a license L2, it may state that L1 must meet some specific conditions, or perhaps that L1 must be L2 and nothing else. When people talk about ...


5

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 ...


5

With very few exceptions, you can take your pick of proprietary and closed source applications for Linux or Android. Glibc is LGPL and is linked with practically everything. Autodesk, MathWorks, Oracle, IBM, Adobe, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Nvidia, Motorola, and many more companies incorporate and depend on LGPL and even some GPL components in their ...


5

The GPL is a heavily viral license. If you use GPL code in your program at all, the entire codebase has to be compatible with the GPL. If the library in question is available as both GPL and LGPL, you can link to it dynamically (as an external DLL/SO/dylib/whatever) without being in violation of the LGPL. If not, you need to look for another library, or a ...


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