Home  ›  Is Youtubes Video Uploading Software Proprietary or Patent

Is Youtubes Video Uploading Software Proprietary or Patent

Written By Thursday, 14 April 2022 Add Comment Edit

Software released under a license restricting distribution rights

Proprietary software, besides known every bit not-free software or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or some other person reserves some licensing rights to use, modify, share modifications, or share the software, restricting user freedom with the software they lease. It is the reverse of open-source or costless software.[1] Non-free software sometimes includes patent rights.[1] [2] [ disputed – discuss ]

Types [edit]

Public domain & equivalents Permissive license Copyleft (protective license) Noncommercial license Proprietary license Merchandise secret
Software PD, CC0 BSD, MIT, Apache GPL, AGPL JRL, AFPL proprietary software, no public license individual, internal software
Other artistic works PD, CC0 CC-BY CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC Copyright, no public license unpublished

Origin [edit]

Until the belatedly 1960s computers—large and expensive mainframe computers, machines in particularly air-conditioned calculator rooms—were usually leased to customers rather than sold.[3] [4] Service and all software available were ordinarily supplied past manufacturers without separate accuse until 1969. Computer vendors normally provided the source code for installed software to customers.[ citation needed ] Customers who developed software often made it available to others without charge.[v] Airtight source means estimator programs whose source code is not published except to licensees. It is available to exist edited only past the organisation that developed it and those licensed to use the software.

In 1969, IBM, which had antitrust lawsuits pending against it, led an industry change past starting to accuse separately for mainframe software[6] [seven] and services, by unbundling hardware and software.[8]

Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in 1976 decried reckoner hobbyists' rampant copyright infringement of software, particularly Microsoft's Altair Basic interpreter, and asserted that their unauthorized use hindered his power to produce quality software. But the legal status of software copyright, particularly for object code, was non clear until the 1983 appeals court ruling in Apple tree Reckoner, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.[ix] [10] [xi]

According to Brewster Kahle the legal characteristic of software changed also due to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.[12]

Starting in February 1983 IBM adopted an "object-code-only" model for a growing list of their software and stopped shipping much of the source code,[13] [14] even to licensees.

In 1983, binary software became copyrightable in the Us likewise by the Apple vs. Franklin law decision,[xv] earlier which only source code was copyrightable.[16] Additionally, the growing availability of millions of computers based on the same microprocessor compages created for the first time an unfragmented and large plenty market for binary distributed software.[xvi]

Legal footing [edit]

Near of the software is covered by copyright which, along with contract law, patents, and trade secrets, provides legal basis for its possessor to constitute exclusive rights.[17]

A software vendor delineates the specific terms of employ in an stop-user license agreement (EULA). The user may hold to this contract in writing, interactively on screen (clickwrap), or by opening the box containing the software (shrink wrap licensing). License agreements are unremarkably not negotiable.[18] Software patents grant sectional rights to algorithms, software features, or other patentable subject matter, with coverage varying past jurisdiction. Vendors sometimes grant patent rights to the user in the license agreement.[nineteen] The source code for a slice of software is routinely handled as a merchandise secret.[20] Occasionally, software is made available with fewer restrictions on licensing or source-code admission; such software is known as "complimentary" or "open-source."[21]

Limitations [edit]

Since license agreements do not override applicable copyright law or contract constabulary, provisions in conflict with applicable law are not enforceable.[22] Some software is specifically licensed and not sold, in order to avert limitations of copyright such as the first-auction doctrine.[23]

Exclusive rights [edit]

The owner of proprietary software exercises certain exclusive rights over the software. The owner can restrict the use, inspection of source code, modification of source code, and redistribution.

Utilise of the software [edit]

Vendors typically limit the number of computers on which software tin can be used, and prohibit the user from installing the software on extra computers.[ citation needed ] Restricted apply is sometimes enforced through a technical measure, such as production activation, a product fundamental or series number, a hardware key, or re-create protection.

Vendors may likewise distribute versions that remove particular features, or versions which allow only sure fields of endeavor, such as not-commercial, educational, or not-profit use.

Employ restrictions vary by license:

  • Windows Vista Starter is restricted to running a maximum of three concurrent applications.
  • The retail edition of Microsoft Role Home and Student 2007 is limited to non-commercial use on up to three devices in i household.
  • Windows XP tin be installed on 1 computer, and limits the number of network file sharing connections to 10.[24] The Dwelling Edition disables features nowadays in Windows XP Professional.
  • Traditionally, Adobe licenses are limited to one user, simply allow the user to install a second copy on a habitation computer or laptop.[25] This is no longer true with the switching to Creative Cloud.
  • iWork '09, Apple's productivity suite, is bachelor in a five-user family pack, for use on upwards to five computers in a household.[26]

Inspection and modification of source lawmaking [edit]

Vendors typically distribute proprietary software in compiled form, usually the machine language understood past the computer's central processing unit. They typically retain the source lawmaking, or human being-readable version of the software, often written in a higher level programming linguistic communication.[27] This scheme is oftentimes referred to as closed source.[28]

While virtually proprietary software is distributed without the source code, some vendors distribute the source lawmaking or otherwise brand it available to customers. For example, users who accept purchased a license for the Cyberspace forum software vBulletin can modify the source for their own site but cannot redistribute information technology. This is true for many web applications, which must be in source lawmaking form when being run past a web server. The source code is covered by a non-disclosure agreement or a license that allows, for example, report and modification, merely not redistribution.[29] The text-based email client Pino and sure implementations of Secure Shell are distributed with proprietary licenses that make the source code available.[ citation needed ]Some licenses for proprietary software allow distributing changes to the source code, but only to others licensed for the product, and some[30] of those modifications are eventually picked up past the vendor.

Some governments fearfulness that proprietary software may include defects or malicious features which would compromise sensitive information. In 2003 Microsoft established a Government Security Program (GSP) to allow governments to view source code and Microsoft security documentation, of which the Chinese government was an early participant.[31] [32] The program is part of Microsoft's broader Shared Source Initiative which provides source code access for some products. The Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) and Express Public License (Ms-LPL) are proprietary software licenses where the source code is made available.

Governments have as well been defendant of calculation such malware to software themselves. Co-ordinate to documents released by Edward Snowden, the NSA has used covert partnerships with software companies to make commercial encryption software exploitable to eavesdropping, or to insert backdoors.[33] [34]

Software vendors sometimes apply obfuscated code to impede users who would contrary engineer the software.[35] This is especially common with certain programming languages.[ citation needed ] For example, the bytecode for programs written in Java can be easily decompiled to somewhat usable lawmaking,[ citation needed ] and the source code for programs written in scripting languages such as PHP or JavaScript is available at run fourth dimension.[36]

Redistribution [edit]

Proprietary software vendors tin can prohibit the users from sharing the software with others. Another unique license is required for another party to employ the software.

In the case of proprietary software with source code bachelor, the vendor may also prohibit customers from distributing their modifications to the source code.

Shareware is closed-source software whose owner encourages redistribution at no price, but which the user sometimes must pay to apply afterward a trial period. The fee ordinarily allows use by a unmarried user or estimator. In some cases, software features are restricted during or after the trial menstruum, a do sometimes called crippleware.

Interoperability with software and hardware [edit]

Proprietary file formats and protocols [edit]

Proprietary software ofttimes[ citation needed ] stores some of its information in file formats that are incompatible with other software, and may besides communicate using protocols which are incompatible. Such formats and protocols may be restricted as trade secrets or bailiwick to patents.[ citation needed ]

Proprietary APIs [edit]

A proprietary application programming interface (API) is a software library interface "specific to ane device or, more likely to a number of devices within a particular manufacturer's product range."[37] The motivation for using a proprietary API can be vendor lock-in or because standard APIs do not support the device's functionality.[37]

The European Commission, in its March 24, 2004, determination on Microsoft's business practices,[38] quotes, in paragraph 463, Microsoft general managing director for C++ development Aaron Contorer as stating in a February 21, 1997, internal Microsoft memo drafted for Beak Gates:

The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that nearly ISVs would be crazy not to use information technology. And it is and then securely embedded in the source lawmaking of many Windows apps that at that place is a huge switching cost to using a unlike operating system instead.

Early versions of the iPhone SDK were covered by a non-disclosure agreement. The agreement forbade contained developers from discussing the content of the interfaces. Apple discontinued the NDA in October 2008.[39]

Vendor lock-in [edit]

Any dependency on the future versions and upgrades for a proprietary software parcel can create vendor lock-in, entrenching a monopoly position.[40]

Software limited to sure hardware configurations [edit]

Proprietary software may also have licensing terms that limit the usage of that software to a specific fix of hardware. Apple has such a licensing model for macOS, an operating system which is limited to Apple hardware, both by licensing and diverse design decisions. This licensing model has been affirmed past the United states of america Courtroom of Appeals for the Ninth Excursion.[41]

Abandonment past owners [edit]

Proprietary software which is no longer marketed, supported or sold past its owner is chosen abandonware, the digital course of orphaned works. If the proprietor of a software package should end to be, or decide to cease or limit production or back up for a proprietary software package, recipients and users of the package may take no recourse if problems are found with the software. Proprietors can fail to improve and support software because of business problems.[42] Back up for older or existing versions of a software parcel may exist ended to strength users to upgrade and pay for newer versions[43] (planned obsolescence). Sometimes another vendor or a software's customs themselves can provide support for the software, or the users tin migrate to either competing systems with longer support life cycles or to FOSS-based systems.[44]

Some closed-source software is released by their owner at cease-of-life every bit open up-source or source available software, often to prevent the software from becoming unsupported and unavailable abandonware.[45] [46] [47] 3D Realms and id Software are famous for the practise of releasing closed source software into the open up source.[ farther explanation needed ] Some of those kinds are complimentary-of-charge downloads (freeware), some are still commercially sold (e.k. Arx Fatalis).[ further caption needed ] More than examples of formerly closed-source software in the List of commercial software with available source lawmaking and Listing of commercial video games with available source lawmaking.

Formerly open-source software [edit]

Some formerly open-source software was made proprietary later. Sometimes for commercialization reasons, sometimes as security or anti-cheat measurement (Security through obscurity).[ citation needed ]

Pricing and economics [edit]

Proprietary software is non synonymous with commercial software,[48] [49] although the two terms are sometimes used synonymously in articles about complimentary software.[fifty] [51] Proprietary software can be distributed at no cost or for a fee, and free software can exist distributed at no cost or for a fee.[52] The departure is that whether proprietary software tin can be distributed, and what the fee would be, is at the proprietor'south discretion. With free software, anyone who has a copy can decide whether, and how much, to charge for a copy or related services.[53]

Proprietary software that comes for no price is called freeware.

Proponents of commercial proprietary software contend that requiring users to pay for software as a production increases funding or time bachelor for the research and evolution of software. For instance, Microsoft says that per-re-create fees maximize the profitability of software evolution.[54]

Proprietary software generally creates greater commercial activity over gratis software, especially in regard to market revenues.[55] Proprietary software is oft sold with a license that gives the finish user right to apply the software.

Examples [edit]

Examples of proprietary software include Microsoft Windows, Adobe Wink Player, PS3 OS, iTunes, Adobe Photoshop, Google Earth, macOS (formerly Mac Os 10 and Os X), Skype, WinRAR, Oracle'due south version of Java and some versions of Unix.

Software distributions considered as proprietary may in fact incorporate a "mixed source" model including both gratuitous and non-free software in the same distribution.[56] Nigh if non all so-called proprietary UNIX distributions are mixed source software, bundling open-source components similar BIND, Sendmail, Ten Window System, DHCP, and others forth with a purely proprietary kernel and organization utilities.[57] [58]

Some free software packages are besides simultaneously available under proprietary terms. Examples include MySQL, Sendmail and ssh. The original copyright holders for a work of complimentary software, even copyleft free software, tin can use dual-licensing to allow themselves or others to redistribute proprietary versions. Non-copyleft costless software (i.east. software distributed under a permissive free software license or released to the public domain) allows anyone to make proprietary redistributions.[59] [60] Free software that depends on proprietary software is considered "trapped" by the Free Software Foundation. This includes software written only for Microsoft Windows,[61] or software that could only run on Java, before it became free software.[62]

See too [edit]

  • Business software
  • Commercial off-the-shelf
  • Comparison of open-source and closed-source software
  • List of proprietary software for Linux
  • Proprietary hardware
  • Retail software

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b Saraswati Experts. "2.5.3". Information science WITH C++. Saraswati House Pvt Ltd. p. i.27. ISBN978-93-5199-877-8 . Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  2. ^ AUUG, Inc. (March 2003). "Chapter i. Definitions". AUUGN. AUUG, Inc. p. 51. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  3. ^ Ceruzzi, Paul Due east. (2003). A History of Modern Calculating. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing. p. 128. ISBN0-262-53203-4. Although IBM agreed to sell its machines as part of a Consent Decree constructive January 1956, leasing continued to be its preferred way of doing concern.so everyone started fighting
  4. ^ "The History of Equipment Leasing", Charter Genie, archived from the original on Apr 11, 2008, retrieved Nov 12, 2010, In the 1960s, IBM and Xerox recognized that substantial sums could be made from the financing of their equipment. The leasing of computer and office equipment that occurred then was a pregnant contribution to leasings [sic] growth, since many companies were exposed to equipment leasing for the first time when they leased such equipment.
  5. ^ "Overview of the GNU Organization". GNU Operating System. Free Software Foundation. 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2017-05-01 .
  6. ^ Pugh, Emerson Westward. (2002). "Origins of Software Bundling". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 24 (i): 57–58. doi:x.1109/85.988580.
  7. ^ Hamilton, Thomas Westward. (1969). IBM's Unbundling Conclusion: Consequences for Users and the Manufacture. Programming Sciences Corporation.
  8. ^ IBM (n.d.). "Chronological History of IBM: 1960s". Retrieved May 28, 2016. Rather than offering hardware, services and software exclusively in packages, marketers 'unbundled' the components and offered them for sale individually. Unbundling gave nativity to the multibillion-dollar software and services industries, of which IBM is today a world leader.
  9. ^ Gates, Neb (February iii, 1976). "An Open Alphabetic character to Hobbyists". Retrieved May 28, 2016.
  10. ^ Swann, Matthew (xviii Nov 2004). Executable Code is Not the Proper Subject of Copyright Law (Technical study). Cal Poly State University. CPSLO-CSC-04-02.
  11. ^ Pamela Samuelson (Sep 1984), "CONTU Revisited: The Case against Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Automobile-Readable Form", Duke Law Journal, 1984 (4): 663–769, doi:10.2307/1372418, JSTOR 1372418
  12. ^ Robert X. Cringely's interview with Brewster Kahle, 46th minute
  13. ^ Cantrill, Bryan (2014-09-17). "Corporate Open Source Anti-patterns". youtube.com. Archived from the original (video) on 2021-10-27. Retrieved 2015-12-26 . [at 3:fifteen]
  14. ^ Gallant, John (1985-03-18). "IBM policy draws fire - Users say source lawmaking rules hamper modify". Computerworld. Retrieved 2015-12-27 . While IBM's policy of withholding source lawmaking for selected software products has already marked its second anniversary, users are only now offset to cope with the touch on of that determination. But whether or non the advent of object-code-simply products has affected their day-to-twenty-four hour period DP operations, some users remain angry about IBM's decision. Announced in February 1983, IBM's object-code-only policy has been applied to a growing list of Large Bluish system software products
  15. ^ Impact of Apple tree vs. Franklin Conclusion
  16. ^ a b Landley, Rob (2009-05-23). "23-05-2009". landley.internet. Retrieved 2015-12-02 . And so if open source used to be the norm back in the 1960s and 70s, how did this _change_? Where did proprietary software come from, and when, and how? How did Richard Stallman's petty utopia at the MIT AI lab crumble and forcefulness him out into the wilderness to endeavor to rebuild information technology? Two things changed in the early on 80s: the exponentially growing installed base of microcomputer hardware reached critical mass effectually 1980, and a legal decision contradistinct copyright law to cover binaries in 1983. Increasing book: The microprocessor creates millions of identical computers
  17. ^ Liberman, Michael (1995). "Overreaching Provisions in Software License Agreements". Richmond Journal of Constabulary and Engineering science. 1: 4. Retrieved November 29, 2011.
  18. ^ Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Digital Surroundings: An International Library Perspective (2004). IFLA (2013-01-22). Retrieved on 2013-06-16.
  19. ^ Daniel A. Tysver (2008-11-23). "Why Protect Software Through Patents". Bitlaw.com. Retrieved 2009-06-03 . In connexion with the software, an issued patent may prevent others from utilizing a certain algorithm (such as the GIF prototype compression algorithm) without permission, or may preclude others from creating software programs that perform a role in a sure fashion. In connexion with computer software, copyright police force tin be used to preclude the total duplication of a software program, as well equally the copying of a portion of software code.
  20. ^ Donovan, Southward. (1994). "Patent, copyright and trade surreptitious protection for software". IEEE Potentials. thirteen (three): twenty. doi:10.1109/45.310923. S2CID 19873766. Substantially there are only iii ways to protect computer software under the law: patent it, register a copyright for it, or keep it as a trade cloak-and-dagger.
  21. ^ Eben Moglen (2005-02-12). "Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors". Retrieved 2017-05-01 . Under United states of america copyright law, which is the police force under which almost free software programs accept historically been start published, [...] only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license.
  22. ^ White, Aoife (2012-07-03). "Oracle Can't Stop Software License Resales, Eu Courtroom Says". Bloomberg.
  23. ^ Microsoft Corporation (2005-04-01). "End-User License Agreement for Microsoft Software: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition Service Pack 2" (PDF). p. Page 3. Retrieved 2009-04-29 .
  24. ^ Microsoft Corporation (2005-04-01). "Cease-User License Agreement for Microsoft Software: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition Service Pack 2" (PDF). p. Page 1. Retrieved 2009-04-29 . Y'all may install, use, admission, display and run ane copy of the Software on a single figurer, such as a workstation, last or another device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than than two (2) processors at any 1 time on any single Workstation Reckoner. ... You may permit a maximum of ten (ten) computers or other electronic devices (each a 'Device') to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize one or more of the following services of the Software: File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services, Internet Connectedness Sharing and telephony services.
  25. ^ Adobe Systems, Adobe Software License Understanding (PDF) , retrieved 2010-06-09
  26. ^ iWork '09 Family Pack Specs (complete package) - Presentation - CNET Reviews. Reviews.cnet.com. Retrieved on 2013-06-sixteen.
  27. ^ Heffan, Ira 5. (1997). "Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age" (PDF). Stanford Law Review. 49 (6): 1490. doi:10.2307/1229351. JSTOR 1229351. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-14. Retrieved 2009-07-27 . Nether the proprietary software model, near software developers withhold their source code from users.
  28. ^ David A. Wheeler (2009-02-03). "Free-Libre / Open up Source Software (FLOSS) is Commercial Software". Retrieved 2009-06-03 .
  29. ^ "DISTRIBUTION OF IBM LICENSED PROGRAMS AND LICENSED PROGRAM MATERIALS AND MODIFIED AGREEMENT FOR IBM LICENSED PROGRAMS". Announcement Letters. IBM. February viii, 1983. 283-016.
  30. ^ Greg Mushial (July 20, 1983), "Module 24: SLAC Enhancements to and Beautifications of the IBM H-Level Assembler for Version 2.viii", SLAC VM NOTEBOOK, Stanford Linear Accelerator Middle
  31. ^ Shankland, Stephen. "Governments to see Windows lawmaking". CNET.
  32. ^ Gao, Ken. "Red china to view Windows code". CNET.
  33. ^ James Ball, Julian Borger and Glenn Greenwald (2013-09-06). "Us and UK spy agencies defeat privacy and security on the internet". The Guardian.
  34. ^ Bruce Schneier (2013-09-06). "How to remain secure against NSA surveillance". The Guardian.
  35. ^ "Code Obfuscation: A Comprehensive Guide Against Opposite-Engineering Attempts". AppSealing. 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2022-01-28 .
  36. ^ Tony Patton (2008-11-21). "Protect your JavaScript with obfuscation". Archived from the original on March 15, 2014. Retrieved 2009-06-12 . While the Web promotes the sharing of such code, there are times when you lot or a client may not want to share their JavaScript code. This may be due to the sensitive nature of data within the code, proprietary calculations, or any other scenario.
  37. ^ a b APIs: What they are, and what they're for - Feature - Techworld.com Archived 2012-01-05 at the Wayback Machine. Features.techworld.com. Retrieved on 2013-06-sixteen.
  38. ^ "Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft)" (PDF). European Commission. March 24, 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 28, 2008. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
  39. ^ Wilson, Ben (2008-10-01). "Apple tree Drops NDA for Released iPhone Software". CNET Reviews. Archived from the original on 2013-03-08. Retrieved 2010-12-17 .
  40. ^ The Linux Information Project (2006-04-29). "Vendor Lock-in Definition". Retrieved 2009-06-xi . Vendor lock-in, or just lock-in, is the situation in which customers are dependent on a single manufacturer or supplier for some product [...] This dependency is typically a result of standards that are controlled by the vendor [...] It can grant the vendor some extent of monopoly ability [...] The best mode for an system to avert becoming a victim of vendor lock-in is to use products that arrange to free, industry-wide standards. Free standards are those that can be used by anyone and are not controlled by a single company. In the case of computers, this tin can commonly be accomplished by using free software rather than proprietary software (i.eastward., commercial software).
  41. ^ Apple wins fundamental battle against Psystar over Mac clones (2011-09-29). "Apple court victory over Pystar". Retrieved 2011-09-30 .
  42. ^ "What happens when a proprietary software company dies?". NewsForge. October 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-05 .
  43. ^ "Microsoft Turns Upwardly The Heat On Windows 2000 Users". InformationWeek. December 2006. Archived from the original on 2013-06-25. Retrieved 2008-09-sixteen .
  44. ^ Cassia, Fernando (March 28, 2007). "Open Source, the simply weapon against 'planned obsolescence'". The Inquirer. Archived from the original on January 20, 2011. Retrieved August 2, 2012. {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  45. ^ Bell, John (Oct ane, 2009). "Opening the Source of Art". Applied science Innovation Management Review. Archived from the original on March 30, 2014. Retrieved December thirty, 2012. [...]that no farther patches to the title would be forthcoming. The community was predictably upset. Instead of giving up on the game, users decided that if Activision wasn't going to fix the bugs, they would. They wanted to relieve the game by getting Activision to open up the source and so it could be kept alive beyond the betoken where Activision lost interest. With some help from members of the development squad that were active on fan forums, they were eventually able to convince Activision to release Call to Power Ii's source code in Oct of 2003.
  46. ^ Wen, Howard (June 10, 2004). "Keeping the Myths Alive". linuxdevcenter.com. Archived from the original on April half-dozen, 2013. Retrieved December 22, 2012. [...]fans of the Myth trilogy have taken this idea a step farther: they take official access to the source code for the Myth games. Organized under the name MythDevelopers, this all-volunteer group of programmers, artists, and other talented people devote their time to improving and supporting further evolution of the Myth game serial.
  47. ^ Largent, Andy (Oct viii, 2003). "Homeworld Source Code Released". world wide web.insidemacgames.com. Archived from the original on Oct 12, 2013. Retrieved November 24, 2012. With the release of Homeworld 2 for the PC, Relic Entertainment has decided to give back to their impressive fan community by releasing the source code to the original Homeworld.
  48. ^ Rosen, Lawrence (2004). Open Source Licensing . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. pp. 52, 255, 259. ISBN978-0-thirteen-148787-1.
  49. ^ Havoc Pennington (2008-03-02). "Debian Tutorial". Retrieved 2009-06-04 . Information technology is of import to distinguish commercial software from proprietary software. Proprietary software is non-free software, while commercial software is software sold for money.
  50. ^ Russell McOrmond (2000-01-04). "What is "Commercial Software"?". Retrieved 2009-05-02 .
  51. ^ Michael G. Johnson (1996-09-01). "Licenses and Copyright". Retrieved 2009-06-16 . If you plan for Linux, you do need to sympathize licensing, no matter if you lot are writing free software or commercial software.
  52. ^ Eric Due south. Raymond (2003-12-29). "Proprietary, Jargon File". Retrieved 2009-06-12 . Proprietary software should be distinguished from commercial software. It is possible for the software to exist commercial [...] without being proprietary. The contrary is too possible, for example in binary-just freeware.
  53. ^ "Selling Costless Software". GNU Projection.
  54. ^ "The Commercial Software Model". Microsoft. May 2001. Archived from the original on 2007-03-05.
  55. ^ Open Source Versus Commercial Software: Why Proprietary Software is Here to Stay. Sams Publishing. Oct 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-05 .
  56. ^ Engelfriet, Arnoud (August–September 2006). "The all-time of both worlds". Intellectual Asset Management (IAM). New Hibernia Business firm, Winchester Walk, London Bridge, London SE1 9AG, United Kingdom: Gavin Stewart (19). Archived from the original on 2013-09-14. Retrieved 2008-05-nineteen . {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  57. ^ Loftus, Jack (2007-02-xix). "LinuxWorld: Managing mixed source software stacks". SearchEnterpriseLinux.com. Archived from the original on 2010-06-03.
  58. ^ Tan, Aaron (2006-12-28). "Novell: We're a 'mixed-source' company". CNET Networks, Inc.
  59. ^ Rosenberg, Donald (2000). Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers. Foster Metropolis: IDG. p. 109. ISBN0-7645-4660-0.
  60. ^ "Categories of Free and Non-Free Software". GNU Project.
  61. ^ Free Software Foundation (2009-05-05). "Oft Asked Questions near the GNU Licenses". Retrieved 2017-05-01 .
  62. ^ Richard Stallman (2004-04-12). "Free Merely Shackled - The Coffee Trap". Retrieved 2017-05-01 .

External links [edit]

  • The lexicon definition of software at Wiktionary

tindellhipen1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

0 Response to "Is Youtubes Video Uploading Software Proprietary or Patent"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel