Licensing Code

[Cori Riska]

Publicrepositories on GitHub are often used to share open source software. For your repository to truly be open source, you'll need to license it so that others are free to use, change, and distribute the software.

We created choosealicense.com, to help you understand how to license your code. A software license tells others what they can and can't do with your source code, so it's important to make an informed decision.

You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license. The Open Source Guide provides additional guidance on choosing the correct license for your project.

Note: If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository. If you have already created a repository and no longer want users to have access to the repository, you can make the repository private. When you change the visibility of a repository to private, existing forks or local copies created by other users will still exist. For more information, see "Setting repository visibility."

When you search by a family license, your results will include all licenses in that family. For example, when you use the query license:gpl, your results will include repositories licensed under GNU General Public License v2.0 and GNU General Public License v3.0. For more information, see "Searching for repositories."

The open source Ruby gem Licensee compares the repository's LICENSE file to a short list of known licenses. Licensee also provides the Licenses API and gives us insight into how repositories on GitHub are licensed. If your repository is using a license that isn't listed on the Choose a License website, you can request including the license.

If your repository is using a license that is listed on the Choose a License website and it's not displaying clearly at the top of the repository page, it may contain multiple licenses or other complexity. To have your license detected, simplify your LICENSE file and note the complexity somewhere else, such as your repository's README file.

It took me 3days to a week to finish it. My technique would easily become much faster with a few more modifications, but I was not ready to invest more time and end up having my code stolen or used and getting the job denied. I am going to write a short description of the technicalities from which someone who is smart enough can see the extension to the technique I used to make it much faster.

I was thinking of licensing my code under MIT License and the documentations under something like creative commons. This will theoretically/psychologically gaurantee me that they won't steal the code (though they can steal it if they want and I wouldn't know). I am explaining in my documentation how the code could thereotically be improved in specific places and this will give them a gist of my abilities.

The problem was given to me as a pdf file and on the file it was written "for internal use only", I didn't sign any contract or made any promises. I feel this is the best way I can protect myself and I still want to solve the problem because of my interest in it and because this is the kind of work I want. Worst case is that I don't get the job but after this work I can almost publish a paper on this problem and at least improve my scientific profile.

In the absence of a contract between you and the potential employer, you continue to own the copyright for any code you write in consideration of being hired. Likewise, unless you explicitly state a license on the code when you provide it to the potential employer, then you have not licensed the code to them.

Since you own the copyright to the code, you can do whatever you want with it later on. That also includes releasing the code under whatever license you like such as the MIT, BSD, Creative Commons, or GPL licenses.

As you haven't licensed the code to the potential employer, they should not use your code in any of their applications. Why not? Because you haven't given them permission to do so (yet). Note that if you later release the code under a permissive license (such as MIT or BSD) then they would have license to use your code. You could put a poison-pill on your code by licensing it with the GPL which could potentially force their application to be re-licensed as GPL if they used your code and weren't careful in how they incorporated it.

Unfortunately, copyright law and employment law varies (sometimes considerably so) by jurisdiction, and if you're really worried about this aspect then you'll need to consult an attorney specializing in intellectual property.

The first mistake involves disclosure. They didn't have you sign any documentation or non-disclosure agreements prior to providing the assignment to you. If that assignment is part of their mainline work, then the risk of exposure is on them, not you. Just because you interviewed with them, you are not bound by any legal requirements regarding non-disclosure even though you may feel ethically bound to not disclose.

The second mistake involves licensing. Giving you an assignment related to their mainline of work without documentation or a contract makes things very problematic for them. As you haven't provided the code under a license to them, they are not allowed to use your code. Lack of a contract leaves things in a questionable state, which puts a legal burden (aka headache) on them if they want to use your code. The worst case is they have to come back to you and say "Hey, we don't want to hire you but we still want to use your code. Will you license it to us?"

The above is one of the reasons why most companies do not have interview candidates develop code against problems the company is actually experiencing with their applications. It's far easier to come up with a smaller design project unrelated to their applications in order to evaluate your code writing ability. It creates intentionally throw-away code that has no legal bearing upon the company's mainline activities.

Good evening! I have a user who is getting the error message shown below. I've seen some information for Recap and the Building Design Suite, but this is a standalone product and I'm not sure where to start to fix this. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance for any ideas, hope all is well and have a most blessed night!

Thanks for the suggestions and I did find the .msi file in the LT installer, so I'm having the user try this. Hopefully this resolves the issue and I'll to post back when I get confirmation. Hope all is well and have a most blessed day!

I am having this error as well, but none of the recommended solutions work as I do not have the licensing software installed and there is no network license, it is now just a licensing service. Any ideas?

In assessing the public interest benefits, the Department considers whether the code-share operations are provided for in a bilateral agreement between the United States and the homeland government of the foreign air carrier(s) involved, the benefits to the public from expansion of services and fare options, and the the impact the code share would have on airline competition. Before any code-shared operations can be implemented, the U.S. carrier must conduct a safety audit of its foreign carrier code-share partner to ensure that the operations meet acceptable international standards and submit the results of that audit for review by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Your registration code is provided with your renewal notifications. If you do not have a renewal notification or do not have a valid email address on file with OPLC and need a registration code, contact Custome...@oplc.nh.gov.

Yes. Notifications for renewal are typically emailed two times prior to the license expiration date. An expired notice will also be emailed 30 days after the expiration date. The email address used for setting up your account will receive the renewal notifications.

Can I legally use these codes as I can't find any license they are under? I.e. Are there any legal restrictions at all to include code from forum websites in a package? Who is the owner of copyright licenses in this case, if any?

Are there any legal differences in cases where:

(a) the initial piece of code was written by me and then other forum users corrected/updated it?

(b) I just asked a question and got an answer (a piece of code)?

The first thing you need to consider is whether the code is copyrightable at all. Quoting from a comment made by leezer3 on another post: "In order to be copyrightable (under UK/European law at least) the work must not be a simple mathematical algorithm, and must have unique properties." In other words, there needs to be something creative about it.

If it's simple enough, you can use it - no problem (I'd usually still include a comment linking to the post it came from though). If it's more complex, can you take the idea of the solution and completely rewrite it "in your own words"? If so, you now own the copyright on it (when doing this I still tend to comment with the original post as a sort of 'hat tip', but that's not required).

If it's not simple and you can't/don't want to rewrite it, then you need to consider how it's licensed on the website or forum you found it on. In the case of all StackExchange sites, scroll to the bottom where you'll see a link to CC BY-SA 3.0. You are free to use and change any content (code or text) that you find on SE sites, as long as you give credit and as long as you continue to share in the same manner any changes you make.

3a8082e126