Top new questions this week:
|
|
I am looking for an open source license that strictly matches the following criteria, could anyone suggest any?
Must:
Rename the project
Disclose the source
Include the original license (also cannot ...
|
|
It is my understanding that when an executable program that depends (directly or indirectly) on libraries licensed under MIT and/or Apache 2.0 is compiled into a statically-linked binary that is then ...
|
Greatest hits from previous weeks:
|
|
Here is the scenario:
As a researcher you are making a modification to some GPL3-licensed software, and thus if you were to distribute the code, you would need to do this using the GPL (or a ...
|
|
"If you plan to use [some software] on a commercial basis, you must separately purchase a commercial-use license" [1]
Assuming the commercial-use and non-commercial use licenses for my software both ...
|
|
I've got some code which produces some output files, this project is open source under GPLv3. I've also got some people reaching out to me and asking if they can use the output files (they don't care ...
|
|
FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software", whereas FLOSS stands for "Free/Libre/Open Source Software". The use of libre denotes the idea that the software is "free as in free speech, not free ...
|
|
I would like to publish code for an application under an open source license like BSD, MIT, or Apache 2 which allows for changes and derivative works to be contributed back to the open source project ...
|
|
As a maintainer of an open source project which strictly enforces coding style and 100% test coverage, how do I deal with enthusiastic contributors who write terrible looking, untested code (that ...
|
|
So I used a piece of software which claims to be open source and is licensed under "GPL for research purposes only".
As far as I know, GPL 2 and 3 are not themselves free, in sense that you can't ...
|
