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
Do they have to be GPL or can they be something else? And if nothing is specified in the code are they considered to be GPL by default?
I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
First off, Mozilla has nothing to do this. There is no reason to believe that Firefox add-ons are GPL-licensed by default. That's because the license of the browser doesn't affect the license of the add-ons; they don't typically reuse the browser's source code. (In fact, Firefox itself isn't necessarily GPL'd. Mozilla releases it under a tri-license which includes the Mozilla Public License as one of the license options.)
So, I'd imagine that if you don't specify a license to an add-on, then that add-on defaults to whatever copyright control would be extended to you as author of the add-on, depending on your jurisdiction.
Now if you used GPL'd code in your add-on, then that add-on would obviously be GPL-licensed if you released it publicly. Unless you got special permission from the original author to use a different license, of course.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 months ago.
Improve this question
For a Java desktop application, I am using Launch4J to create an EXE file, and NSIS to create an installer.
It works fine all the while, but until recently the Chrome and Edge browsers both give a download warning
...exe is not commonly downloaded and may be dangerous
It looks as follows.
Chrome
Edge
The old version 1.0.7.56 doesn't have any issue
My previous version of download (version 1.0.7.56) doesn't flag any warning
https://github.com/yccheok/jstock/releases/download/release_1-0-7-56/jstock-1.0.7.56-setup.exe
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/1eebb22b116c02e36c3aa4d4311608d2843694da378e8654f5f3d83fb41ca655 (Virus total report for version 1.0.7.56)
The new version 1.0.7.57 has a download warning issue
My current version of download (version 1.0.7.57) will flag an unwanted warning
https://github.com/yccheok/jstock/releases/download/release_1-0-7-57/jstock-1.0.7.57-setup.exe
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/2b32d07deba2e932dc1e44120c09efb6152556f94bbb6fef87d22f438c1a64fb (Virus total report for version 1.0.7.57)
What are some good ways to remove such blockage from the web browser, so that my users can download those EXE files without any issue?
That's just because it's an unfamiliar downloaded EXE file. I think the only way to remove that is to request a review.
For Edge, you can try to click Report this file as safe to report the download.
For Chrome, Google maintains a list of trusted software publishers. If you're a software publisher and your binaries are flagged by Chrome, learn how to resolve malware or unwanted software issues related to your downloads.
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 am going to create a Magento theme and I was thinking of basing it on the Magento 'Modern' theme which ships with the install.
1) Is it okay to create theme from this and resell it? ie. Does the theme license allow for modifications to be resold.
2) What is the best way to create my theme, I have heard about child themes but do not understand how they work? Should I just copy the modern theme files in to a new templates directory and modify them as I please.
A quick look at some of the files show they are distributed under the Academic Free License which like most open source licenses allow you to make derivative works as long as they carry the same license.
Also note the following extract which shows you may legitimately sell your theme.
Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative Works.
Copy the contents of both app/design/frontend/default/modern/ and skin/frontend/default/modern/ to new directories and it will just work.
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 wondering what is the license of the fonts included with Windows. Does anybody know where I could find the EULA for them? In general, can I freely use these fonts in my open source software?
In general, I know I cannot distribute the font file itself, but how about simply displaying some text with this font? For example, Arial is used in many websites, I guess these websites don't pay some extra license fee to Microsoft?
The Arial wikipedia article describes the licensing terms of Microsoft fonts. And, it also specifies free alternatives available that are metrically equivalent to Arial. Liberation Sans is a good choice IMO. Look at relevant wiki articles to know all the free alternatives available.
Most of the Windows fonts are licensed to Ascender corporation. They now provide license for software and hardware developers to use them. See Type Foundry: Microsoft for more information, and the fonts available.
In addition to that, if you go to right-click -> properties, there's a tab called license. It provides the information about licensing terms as well.
When it comes to use of fonts like Arial in websites, I think it's allowed because the website itself doesn't embed the font, but merely specifies the font name. It's the browser that does the mapping. If you are talking about a stand-alone software, you need to have a closer look.
You are free to use the fonts supplied with Windows, free to write software that uses them, but you cannot distribute them.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there any way to force either Firefox or Chrome to interpret a loaded resource as a particular MIME type?
For example, the raw code views provided by online SCC interfaces such as Google Code send content as text/plain by default. If I'm looking at an HTML file, I'd like to be able to override this in the browser and view it as text/html.
Are there any extensions or hidden commands for Firefox or Chrome that provide "View as MIME type" functionality?
Shameless plug: I just published a (free) Chrome extension to do just what you ask. It's available on the Chrome web store. It works by listening to the chrome.webRequest.onHeadersReceived event and patching in a custom content-type HTTP header. If you'd like the build it yourself or see how it's implemented, the source is available on GitHub.
For Firefox, there is an add-on provides almost the function you wanted: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/force-content-type/ . No idea if there is a Chrome extension or not.
Even if the functionality exists, I wouldn't recommend you to use it in your example: Arbitrary HTML would have access to google.com domain for cookie and script, which is really really bad in terms of security.
Ubuntu 12.04 has an extension to the System Settings called Tweak. This has a FileType Manager.
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
What are the license restrictions surrounding the redistribution of Windows OSes as part of virtual demos?
I am looking to make available demo versions of my software as already installed and configured on a VHD (or whatever the VMWare equivalent is). I was told that this is not possible because MS does not allow the Windows OS to be redistributed that way (even trial/demo versions). Can anyone point me to a definitive source (MS license terms maybe?) that specifies what the requirements are? Or at least an official "this is not possible"?
MS seems to be distributing their virtual training labs and product demos more and more as a VHD download. I was hoping to be able to do the same.
Sure, it's very likely that you can distribute Windows as part of your demo, but you're going to have to buy a license for every copy. I'm assuming you wanted to avoid that.
Your sources are correct; this isn't possible. Microsoft distributes windows on VHD's for training and demonstration purposes because it can. I'm not aware of any organization being given permission to distribute Windows as you describe. You are not likely to find an official "this is not possible", simply because licenses define what you can do, not (in general) what you can't. Most of the prohibitions in a license agreement are stipulations that are part of the granting of some other right. You won't find a comprehensive list of what's disallowed, simply because that's obviously impossible.
The only way to get an official response is to ask your Microsoft representative, assuming that you have one (if your organization has an EA, for example, the EA representative would be the person to talk to).