Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I know, the general answer will be yes, but here is my situation.
I got a plotting function from one MATLAB's toolbox and modified its m-file to draw what I need. Eventually this function became a part of program I would like to distribute as an open source (or under other license). Can I do this? Well, may be it was not wise to create a function in such a way, but I didn't think about distribution at that time. The function still depends on other functions in this toolbox, so a potential user supposed to have a license for it.
Any thoughts, recommendations?
Have you ever modified MATLAB's m-files directly?
This issue is sometimes dealt with by you not distributing the code but rather a diff that can be used to turn the copyrighted code into your code.
Based on a brief look: it seems that the Mathworks assert copyright in the code that they publish in m-files in their toolboxes -- it would be very suprising if they didn't. That kind of rules out your making minor modifications to their files and then publishing them at all without explicit permission. It probably also rules out you making major modifications and passing the work off as your own and publishing it.
But this is the sort of area where you might want to get legal advice.
Much better approach is to write your own m-files to use Mathworks code 'as-is', writing wrappers or auxiliary functions if their code doesn't do exactly what you want.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I’m somewhat confused about the implications of introducing source code licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License. I'm developing a test framework and I want to use and modify an open source project as part of the existing framework. Does this imply that the entire test framework should be open sourced?
You can integrate the LGPL component into a proprietary solution as long as it stays separate. So for example linking is fine, usage as a processor is fine. Bundling is also fine, as long as you clearly state that the bundle contains LGPL software and which that is.
You certainly can modify that software to your needs, that is the whole point of Open Source Software. However of you spread it again afterwards, for example by bundling it with your framework, you have to publish your modifications.
In general follow this rule of thumb:
You can use it and modify it to your needs, but do not try to make it appear as if you implemented that solution. Be fair and give credits to those who did the work for you.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I was evaluating ZK framework, which is LGPL and it's spring plugin zk-spring is GPL.
If i develop a system with different application like domain, web(zk, zk-spring), web-services. Now When I deploy these application on the client machine, would i have to also provide all the source code of my applications to the client? I also want to keep proprietary of code to myself.
Or Should i buy license and can own my application code and don't have to use the GPL.
I am not clear so, please answer my all concerns and issue involved here.
looking forward to hear from you soon and thanks in advance.
If you wish to distribute any work that is derivative of, or contains sufficient protectable expressive content taken from, a work covered by the GPL, you must also distribute the source code of that work, even if you wrote it. There really is no better answer possible. If you need an opinion that you can legally rely on, consult an attorney.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been working on a framework in AS3 that I want to release, but first I obviously need to prepare some documentation for it.
I've noticed that quite a few sites have the exact same layout, functionality etc as Adobe Livedocs, which has let me to believe that there's something open source out there for creating online documentation.
Here's some examples:
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/
http://papervision3d.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/as3/trunk/docs/index.html
http://www.fisixengine.com/api/
Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction for tools that I can use to prepare online documentation?
Ideally the system would be specifically suited for documentation in ActionScript 3. I don't have a requirement in terms of the documentation being automatically generated either - if there's something out there that looks/works nice I'm happy to manually create the documentation (provided it comes with tools for easily adding classes, arguments, etc).
Adobe has a free tool called ASDoc. It generates documentation which follows the official Adobe patter. Frankly, it isn't worth it though. The ASDoc tool is buggy and unreliable. If it has difficulty finding an import, if an import isn't used, a comment is not correctly formatted, or you have your source code spread out in any sort of unexpected way, it simply breaks.
My company has lost over 50 developer hours (a few people tried to get a couple of different projects to work and failed) in an attempt to get around these limitations and our solution? We used NaturalDocs (A JavaDoc compiler). Is it perfect? No. Is it comparable to ASDoc in output? Sort of, it isn't as neat, and it would be nice if it treated things a little differently, but it works to display the documentation.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a web based ladder system for a game. It is very game specific and I want to make the project open source so the community can give back, contribute and make the experience better for everyone. However at the same time I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites because the purpose of the website/project is to unify the community under one roof. So my question is: what is the best license to use to make that possible?
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites ...
This really misses the point of Free Software, or as the FSF puts it, it's open source but not really Free Software. Despite my tone, I'm not here to lecture you, I'm simply pointing out that people are not likely to help if the project has this kind of restriction.
However, if you change that to:
... I don't want people to re-use the code/implement the code on separate sites without contributing any modifications they make back to the project ...
Then the GNU Affero General Public License might be appropriate; it prevents people from modifying your website unless they publish their changes under the same license.
If you still insist on your original restriction, then no open source license will help you, since most of them are about being Free Software, not just open source. You're going to have to write your own license, or modify an existing one.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am wondering if there are any statically typed, embeddable scripting languages. Python, JavaScript, etc. are great languages, but they are dynamically typed (that is, types are checked at run time). I am just wondering if anyone knows of any statically typed scripting languages that can be embedded in a C++ application?
I'd suggest you check out Angelscript. We used it on Warsow and it's pretty good. It has all the features you'd expect like classes, memory management, etc. Since it's statically typed, it can make better optimizations for you, and so the bytecode ends up faster than other scripting languages.
However, AS is not as easy to use as others like Lua, and there is only a single .zip download -- that means no .exe installers, .deb packages, .dmg or anything. Generally this is OK because you'll want to bundle AS into your project's anyways. The main difficultly compared to Lua is just that the library is a lot bigger (but has more features). Not that many people use it so it's a lot harder to find examples and help, but there are good docs so it shouldn't be all that hard to get started.
However, I would personally rather have a dynamic language for scripting. When I script an app, I want to get in there and code the crap out of it without worrying about C-style baggage. Other than AngelScript I really can't think of any others worth recommending.
Well, there's Ch - the embeddable C/C++ interpreter
How about C#? Check out Mono's implementation of a C# "scripting language" REPL (http://www.mono-project.com/CsharpRepl)
Update: If you don't know what a REPL is, it's what you see when you run Python without any arguments, or irb
Haskell is statically typed. And you can probably embed ghci or hugs (both are interpreters) into another programm. But it's not easy, afaik.