41

The problem is that in order to call something "Java" you need to get it certified as compliant to the Java spec. One of the pre-requisites of getting this certification is running you JVM through a test suite - Java Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). This test suite is NOT open sourced. So you can build a JVM that behaves in a very Java like way and be ...


38

There are different ways to use UML. Martin Fowler calls these UML modes and identifies four: UML as Notes, UML as Sketch, UML as Blueprint, and UML as a Programming Language. UML as a Programming Language never really took off. There has been some work in this area under different names, like Model Driven Architecture or Model Based Software Engineering. ...


33

Unfortunately there is little you can do. I think you have the answers on your last paragraph. As far as making claims on your web site about other sources - put an app signature on your site, explain than some "less than desirable" sites are listing your apps and it should only be downloaded from <here> or <here>. Do not name or provide any ...


18

Your friend is wrong. First, the GPL only requires to disclose your source code to your customers when your software runs on their machines. Your load balancer runs on your own hardware, so you don't need to provide the sourcecode to anyone who connects to it. There is a variant of the GPL which requires to disclose the sourcecode to everyone who "interacts ...


15

You should have read this answer before it was removed about which one to use. The main answer stated: About Java 7, note that JDK7 and OpenJDK7 will have (nearly) identical code base. Notice the nearly I highlighted. From the article linked from that answer: […] but there is some code where there are open source replacements where we still use the ...


15

There are two answers here, because there are two principal ways to look at this. First, sometimes free software thrives in competition with proprietary software because it wasn't designed to make money in the first place. That's not the only thing that motivates people, after all. But if you're looking for a way to monetize free software, you're ...


12

"Free" is a pretty vaguely defined word, and you'll never find a definition with which absolutely everyone agrees. In the case of Java, a lot of doubt probably stems from the fact that the JDK used to be partially closed source - the OpenJDK project was started only in 2006. Some of hte things you read may be from before that time. With the GLP-licensed ...


8

The open source business model is not much about selling lots of copies to many individual customers. This model would not be sustainable, because each of your customers could compete with you and underbid you. But there are other business models which allow you to make money from open source software: Support and consulting fees: Your software may be free,...


8

Lets use Linux as example, It's not an Object Oriented project, some parts, like the VFS can be modelled in UML, but others can't be or not very effective, i.e. basically just a straight translation from struct into a class diagram with no relationships. UML is good for documentation, to get some one new to a project gets up to speed. That is not something ...


7

Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. From the FAQ: Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available ...


7

Perhaps a better solution would be: Give your program to qualified individuals without condition. Ask them to consider returning the favor by allowing you to distribute open-source stuff that they develop for use with your product. You'll be dealing with people who already have a proven track record of giving away their code, so there's a good chance that ...


7

Allura http://sf.net/p/allura should fit the bill. It is the platform for all the new (or upgraded) projects at SourceForge and is open source. It supports Mercurial and wikis, plus many more tools (Git, SVN, ticket tracker, forums, etc). It doesn't quite have "code review" but does support forking and merge requests for Mercurial and Git repos. It's ...


6

I would suggest to make your Trial version first and spread it for FREE. After your product become solid to be commercial (may take 6-12 months) you release a commercial version where you should support your paid customers. Selling free software is logically non-sense. You may provide support service for open-source free software and charge for it, but not ...


6

The GPL is "free" for certain definitions of the word "free". One major restriction of it is that you are not free to do the wrong thing - you simply can't take a bunch of GPL code, incorporate it in a program that's not under a GPL-compatible license, and release the result as proprietary software. That's not truly "free", and in order to ensure that GPL ...


6

I would recommend neither. Go full open-source for this one project. Your first public software release is primarily a learning experience, and you'll learn more from an open-source project than from a free trial. You need to get some experience managing your user community, predicting and responding to needs, and understanding how people will use the things ...


5

The term "freeware" (rather than the ambiguous "free software") is often used to indicate software that is free of charge but not necessarily supplied with other freedoms. However, freeware usually often carries the connotation of "free to distribute". The adjective "gratis" is used by the FSF to unambiguously indicate "zero monetary cost". However, people ...


5

It sounds like you need a license which requires any downstream changes to be submitted back to you. I don't know of any that include this clause, you may need to have a lawyer write a custom license for you. Open source projects that accept contributions from other developers oftentimes have the developers sign "contributor agreements" in which the ...


5

Nothing prevents anybody from forking your software and becoming a competitor. If you use a copyleft-type license, their fork cannot ever become non-free software (if that's what you mean by proprietary). Things are different with permissive open source license, like BSD-style licenses. If there are other Free alternatives, the only way to monetize on your ...


5

There are several business models for Free Software (which I feel is a more interesting terminology thant Open Source), and you should also look into the FSF site and its what is free software page. Notice also that even proprietary software is often non-profitable thru licensing. It is rumored that the development costs of SAP software is not paid by the ...


4

Java is free. You can redistribute it according to the GPL. You can even fork Java and distribute that. But may not name it Java anymore. After forking it is something different. BTW IANAL. Ask a lawyer if in doubt.


4

Joshua Gay's edit looks sloppy at best: I found at least 2 clauses and a section in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode that look incompatible with any GPL. I've written a letter to the FSF asking them to clarify this matter and the properties of the edit. This is what I just got in reply, from none other than Joshua himself (nested blocks ...


4

My take: Reinventing the wheel is bad. Don't do it. We all know this. Wrapping a command-line tool is always a bit ugly. Lack of useful integration, lack of flow control, having to worry about all sorts of quoting hell. However in this case, there's a perfect solution: just use libcurl. It's what makes up the guts of curl anyway and you get to avoid all ...


4

Wrapping a command line app is not good or bad, its just a technique. The 'good' vs 'bad' comes into play when you look at the alternative approaches. Its less likely to be 'good', for example, if you are wrapping a command line executable when a more suitable library is available to you. On the other hand, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wrapping ...


3

If you don't allow re-distribution of your software, then your code is not "open source". To my knowledge, there is only one 'license' that forbids redistribution of the original software, and that is the default option of copyright law: no license. Personal modification, without redistribution, is (to my knowledge) allowed under the copyright law in most ...


3

You could place a self check in the program to check the size / hash of the executable to make sure it is the original binary you are distributing. I would recommend leaving that section out of the source code if you are distributing it in source form as it could cause problems for people legitimately adding on to the software. maybe even implement this in ...


3

Substitute your own copyright name and year - (from Apache license documentation): To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for ...


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