Search Results

Search found 1038 results on 42 pages for 'licensing'.

Page 1/42 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Windows Server 2003 Licensing

    - by Phil
    Hi all, I'm looking to get a Windows Server 2003 box in the middle of my linux network. :( I'm just concerned about CAL licensing for it. No devices will access any network server function of Windows Server 2003. I don't need Windows for DHCP or DNS or file and print sharing. I have linux boxes to do that! xD I just need a box running Windows (of some variety) to host those few apps that have to run on Windows like my AV management console. In short do I need any CALs for my server if its not acting as server itself. I think Windows Server 2003 comes with 5 CALs which can be per user for the admins to use RDP? Thanks, Phil

    Read the article

  • Deferred Open Source licensing

    - by Thomas W.
    Are there established models for releasing an initially proprietary piece of software under FLOSS conditions after a defined period or a certain point of time? The main problem here is that all parties involved must be able to trust that the Open Source licensing will actually take place at the defined time and no party can further defer or cancel this process. Clearly such a model has its problems, for example it's problematic to deal with contributions from "outside", legally and technically. Ghostscript is a prominent example where a deferred model has been used and abandoned. However, if certain parties involved will insist on keeping the software proprietary, at least for a certain period of time, then the only options are a deferred Open Source licensing model or no Open Source licensing at all. I think I read about services that serve as trusted parties who take care of Open Sourcing the software. However, I was not successful in spotting any of those.

    Read the article

  • Questions about software licensing

    - by iwayneo
    I've been having a discussion about licensing and open source software. Basically - the other guy is saying that licensing is easy, if you're going to build a product you can use an (any) open source project and make money by selling that code. My issue is that say I create a website or app with a project that uses a GPL license the restrictions aren't so straight forward - correct me if i'm wrong on each of these scenarios: 1 - i create an iPhone app using GPL code and put that app into the appstore - the code must be freely available to people buying that app. 2 - i create a website that my client hosts - they must have access to the code. 3 - i create a website as SaaS that my client "leases" but does not own - though it is hosted on their infrastructure - they must have access to that code Am i right on each of those assumptions? Are there any other issues i should be aware of under any other licensing terms for other licenses?

    Read the article

  • Meta-licensing of applications

    - by Gene
    I'm currently evaluating license management solutions for our customized and project-based applications, which are supported by a single server in the intranet of the customer. The applications use common functionality provided by the server (session handling, data synchronization, management capabilities, etc) and are installed on mobile devices. We allow our customers to run the applications on X devices and want to check on the server, whether the customer sticks to this limit (based on the sessions). We don't want licensing software to be installed on the devices itself (for example providing X serials to the customer) nor do we want to host an additional server for licensing in the intranet of the customer. If a client connects, our server should load the license for the application running on the client and verify, that there are sessions left. The licensing managers I looked at (12 products so far) focus on the application itself and don't allow me to implement such a floating behavior as described above. For example, this software could easily be used to create a "Standard Edition" or a "Professional Edition" of our server software, which is not our intention. In XHEO DeployLX there is a "Session Limit", which allows to limit the license to the currently established sessions in ASP.NET, which comes very close to my needs. I'm currently thinking of implementing a custom solution, which allows me to load and enforce custom-defined licenses per application on the server-side and a simple editor to define such licenses (which would contain a type and the limit itself), but I would appreciate an existing, easy to integrate commercial solution. I think it could be possible to use DeployLX for this task, but I would spend a lot of money for implementing most of the solution myself (except for the editor). Thanks in advance for any suggestions or hints. Gene

    Read the article

  • Licensing approach for .NET library that might be used desktop / web-service / cloud environment

    - by Bobrovsky
    I am looking for advice how to architect licensing for a .NET library. I am not asking for tool/service recommendations or something like that. My library can be used in a regular desktop application, in an ASP.NET solution. And now Azure services come into play. Currently, for desktop applications the library checks if the application and company names from the version history are the same as the names the key was generated for. In other cases the library compares hardware IDs. Now there are problems: an Azure-enabled web-application can be run on different hardware each time (AFAIK) sometimes the hardware ID for the same hardware changes unexpectedly checking the hardware ID or version info might not be allowed in some circumstances (shared hosting for example) So, I am thinking about what approach I can take to architect a licensing scheme that: is friendly to customers (I do not try to fight piracy, but I do want to warn the customer if he uses the library on more servers than he paid for) can be used when there is no internet connection can be used on shared hosting What would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Future of a ServiceStack based Solution in the Context of Licensing

    - by Harindaka
    I just want someone to clarify the following questions as Demis Bellot had announced a couple of weeks ago that ServiceStack would go commercial. Refer link below. https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z12tfvoackvnx1xzd04cfrirpvybu1nje54 (Please note that when I say ServiceStack or SS I refer to all associated SS libraries such as ServiceStack.Text, etc.) If I have a solution already developed using ServiceStack today will I have to purchase a license once SS goes commercial even if I don't upgrade the SS binaries to the commercial release version? Will previous versions of SS (prior to commercial licensing) always be opensource and use the same license as before? If I fork SS today (prior to commercial licensing) on Github, would it be illegal to maintain that after SS goes commercial? If the answer to question 2 is yes, then would I still be able to fork a previous version after SS goes commercial without worrying about the commercial license (all the while maintaining and releasing the source to the public)?

    Read the article

  • Framework licensing question [closed]

    - by nosarious
    I have a framework I have been developing but find myself being unable to work on it over the next year. I would like to make it open source in the interim to get others to use it and improve how it works. I would like to consider a licensing system that allows for multiple instances of the software for singular users (ie, a newspaper/magazine or zine hosting the code on their own). I would like to limit it from becoming the basis of a larger hosting service right now because it is intended to be part of a much larger hosting ecosystem which allows for create and share their work. Right now there is no license associated with it, which is why I am not posting a link here. Any help or suggestion on how to handle licensing this code for contributions and use would be appreciated, and if anyone would like to see examples or the github I would be happy to send it.

    Read the article

  • General questions regarding open-source licensing

    - by ndg
    I'm looking to release an open-source iOS software project but I'm very new to the licensing side of the things. While I'm aware that the majority of answers here will not lawyers, I'd appreciate it if anyone could steer me in the right direction. With the exception of the following requirements I'm happy for developers to largely do whatever they want with the projects source code. I'm not interested in any copyleft licensing schemes, and while I'd like to encourage attribution in derivative works it is not required. As such, my requirements are as follows: Original source can be distributed and re-distributed (verbatim) both commercially and non-commercially as long as the original copyright information, website link and license is maintained. I wish to retain rights to any of the multi-media distributed as part of the project (sound effects, graphics, logo marks, etc). Such assets will be included to allow other developers to easily execute the project, but cannot be re-distributed in any manner. I wish to retain rights to the applications name and branding. Futher to selecting an applicable license, I have the following questions: The project makes use of a number of third-party libraries (all licensed under variants of the MIT license). I've included individual licenses within the source (and application) and believe I've met all requirements expressed in these licenses, but is there anything else that needs to be done before distributing them as part of my open-source project? Also included in my project is a single proprietary, close-sourced library that's used to power a small part of the application. I'm obviously unable to include this in the source release, but what's the best way of handling this? Should I simply weak-link the project and exclude it entirely from the Git project?

    Read the article

  • jQuery and jQuery UI (Dual Licensing)

    - by John Hartsock
    OK I have read many posts regarding Dual Licensing using MIT and GPL licenses. But Im curious still, as the wording seems to be inclusive. Many of the Dual Licenses state that the software is licensed using "MIT AND GPL". The "AND" is what confuses me. It seems to me that the word "AND" in the terms, means you will be licensing the product using both licenses. Most of the posts, here on stackoverflow, say you can license the software using one "OR" the other. JQuery specifically states "OR", whereas JQuery UI specifically States "AND". Another Instance of the "AND" would be JQGrid. Im not a lawyer but, it seems to me that a legal interpretation of this would state that use of the software would mean that your using the software under both licenses. Has anyone who has contacted a lawyer gotten clarification or a definitive answer as to what is true? Can you use Dual licensed software products that state "AND" in the terms of agreement under either license?

    Read the article

  • digital magazine publishing engine licensing question

    - by nosarious
    I have a publishing engine I have been developing for thirty months but find myself being unable to work on it during my masters degree. I would like to make it open source in the interim to get others to use it and improve how it works. I would like to consider a licensing system that allows for multiple instances of the software for singular users (ie, a newspaper/magazine or zine hosting the code on their own). I would like to limit it from becoming the basis of a larger magazine hosting service right now because it is intended to be an integral part of a much larger publishing ecosystem which allows for the creation, dissemination and collection of publications as a free or very inexpensive service. Right now there is no license associated with it, which is why I am not posting a link here. (This system was developed to counter implied censorship for digital magazines and remove costly and confusing 'barriers to entry' for creators wishing to make interactive digital content. It is intended to be useful for free, but I would like to prevent people taking the code and using it to take advantage of others. It needs a bit of work to separate the content from the page itself to allow the access of multiple which I cannot develop right now) Any help or suggestion on how to handle licensing this code for contributions and use would be appreciated, and if anyone would like to see examples or the github I would be happy to send it.

    Read the article

  • Dual-licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

    - by user594694
    I maintain a software, a small PHP library, that is released under the LGPL version 3 license (LGPLv3). Someone wants to use the library in their software which has the GPL version 2 license. This license compatibility matrix suggests this is not possible without changing the licensing terms of one of the software. I have been requested to dual-license my code under LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3. Does it make sense, and what might the drawbacks be? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Lighting-Reflectance Models & Licensing Issues

    - by codey
    Generally, or specifically, is there any licensing issue with using any of the well known lighting/reflectance models (i.e. the BRDFs or other distribution or approximation functions): Phong, Blinn–Phong, Cook–Torrance, Blinn-Torrance-Sparrow, Lambert, Minnaert, Oren–Nayar, Ward, Strauss, Ashikhmin-Shirley and common modifications where applicable, such as: Beckmann distribution, Blinn distribution, Schlick's approximation, etc. in your shader code utilised in a commercial product? Or is it a non-issue?

    Read the article

  • Car brands and models licensing

    - by Ju-v
    We are small team which working on car racing game but we don't know about licensing process for branded cars like Nissan, Lamborghini, Chevrolet and etc. Do we need to buy any licence for using real car brand names, models, logos,... or we can use them for free? Second option we think about using not real brand with real models is it possible? If someone have experience with that, fell free to share it. Any information about that is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Licensing Theme Music from other games

    - by HS01
    As part of my game, I thought it would be fun to make a hidden level that pays tribute to Mario Bros (one of the earliest games I ever played). It would be themed in that way with 8-bit graphics and question mark blocks and completing the level would say "Thank you but the princess is in another castle" or such. For the sound track, I'm thinking of just overlaying the standard mario theme music by playing it on a virtual keyboard using a different instrument/timing or something. My question is, am I legally safe? I'm not using anyone else's actual music, I'm just playing the same tune in a different way myself. Do I have to get licensing for this?

    Read the article

  • Dalvik + Java licensing question

    - by Andrew Bate
    This is a licensing question about the Dalvik and J2SE core libraries. In particular the license governing java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue. The license header of the class in the JDK source states that it is GPLv2 only (see grepcode). However, the same file in the Dalvik core libraries seems to be governed by the Apache 2 license only (see android source). How is this possible? I didn't think you could take GPLv2 source and re-license it as Apache 2. (It's obvious they did: a comment above the Java Doc even says "removed link to collections framework docs"!) I'm asking because I have a GPLv3 project and would like to include a derivative work of some source from the core libraries (either Dalvik or J2SE) but publish it under GPLv3. I thought I could do this with Apache 2, but not GPLv2. I know that the J2SE class source is itself derivative work from public domain source, but the changes from the original are substantial. (The original is available at gee.cs.oswego.edu if you are interested.) Therefore the android source really is just a copy of the J2SE source, but published under Apache 2 instead of GPLv2. Is Google really allowed to do this?

    Read the article

  • MS Licensing - 3 windows machines, 30 users, how many CALs required?

    - by alex
    I'm in the middle of upgrading, and purchasing licensing for 3 of our Servers. One will be a Windows Server 2008 machine, running SQL Server 2008. The other two machines will be domain controllers, both running Windows 2003. Our organisation has 30 Users. I understand (through our reseller) that a Windows 2008 licence gives "downgrade" rights to use 2003. Realistically, for the above setup of 3 machines, will I just need one set of 30 CALs for 2008?

    Read the article

  • MS licensing of multiple RDP sessions for non-MS products in Windows XP Pro

    - by vgv8
    Question 1) and 2) were moved into separate thread Which Windows remote connections bypass LSA? and what r definitions of login vs. logon session? 3) Do I understand correctly that multiple remote RDP sessions are supported by Windows XP but require additional (or modified) licensing? Which one? Or it is always illegal to run multiple RDP sessions on Windows XP? even through non-MS commercial software? ---------- Update1: I already understood my error - the main questions were about definitions (important to find the common language with others) and the licensing questions were collateral - but it was already answered. I shall try to separate these questions leaving here the questions about RDp licensing and migrating other questions into separate thread ---------- Update2: Trying to "work around" licensing terms is pointless and wasteful of time I never try "working around" and I never ask anything like this, I am not specialist in licensing. My clients/employers provide me with tools and licensing support. They have corporate lawyers, planning/accounting/purchase departments for these issues. The questions that I ask is the matter of scalability and efficiency (saving my and others time) in my developing work. For ex., Just because I need autentication against Windows AD it is time-saving to use ADAM instead of deploying full-fledged AD with DC + servers + whatever else? Nobody is forcing you to use Windows XP I shall not rush into re-installing all my operating systems on all my development machines (at home, at client premises) just because a few guys have a lot of fun downvoting development-related questions in serverfault.com. If I do so, I make a joker from me in the eyes of my clolleagues et al Update: I unmarked this question as answered since it had not even adressed the question, at least mine. Should I understand that Terminal Server PRO, allowing Windows® XP and Windows® Small Business Server 2003 to host multiple remote desktop sessions, is illegal? Related: My answer to question Has windows XP support multiple remote login session (RDP) at a time?

    Read the article

  • Licensing a JavaScript library

    - by Kendall Frey
    I am developing a free, open-source (duh) JavaScript library, and wondering how to license it. I was considering the GNU GPL, but I heard that I must distribute the license with the software, and I'm not sure anymore. I would like the library to be available much like jQuery: In a free, downloadable script, preferably in either original or minified form. Am I mistaken about the GNU GPL license terms? jQuery is dual licensed under GNU GPL or MIT licenses. How does the GPL apply to single script files like that? Can I license my library with nothing more than a few sentences in the script file? Is there another license that better suits my needs? What would be nice is a license that allows you to put the URL in the source, for people to read if they want. I don't know that many do, unless I am mistaken. I am generally looking to release the library as free software like the GPL specifies, but don't want to have to force licensees to download the full license unless they wish to read it.

    Read the article

  • Licensing Options for a dead project

    - by Russell Durham
    I'm currently working on a project where the original author informally told me that he didn't want to publish the source. Since then, the original author has gone leaving me to be the sole developer on the project. I've tried to contact him several times about making the project open source so that I can have other developers assist me but he is not responding to any communications. I'm not planning on trying to make money of the software, I just want a general license that allows me to put the code on GitHub or BitBucket so that other people in the community can assist me with the development. Can I do this since he is gone and not responding to any form of communication? Is there a time period I need to wait? I know what I asking for is legal advice, I just have no idea where to start looking to find the answer so I decided to start here.

    Read the article

  • Software licensing and code generation

    - by Nicol Bolas
    I'm developing a tool that generates code from some various data. The tool itself will be licensed with the MIT license, which strikes a good balance for me in terms of allowing the freedom to use and modify it, while still holding the copyright. OK, but what is the legal status of the code generated by the tool? Who holds the copyright for code generated by a tool? Do I need to give users of the tool a license for the generated code, or do they already have that by virtue of it being generated by them? What is different about this code generation system (which may be relevant) is that the source information about the code generation is provided by the system itself. The user doesn't feed source data in; the source data is bundled along with it. They simply have the means to transform it in various ways (filtering out parts of the data they don't want, etc). Obviously they could edit the bundled data. Does that affect anything about this?

    Read the article

  • Licensing a collaborative research project

    - by Marcus Jones
    I am involved with an international research project which involves many different universities, national labs, and companies. The project is developed by national grants and in-kind support. One task in the project is to develop code to streamline workflow in our domain (energy simulation) by scripting common pre- and post-processing tasks for different tools. We want this code to be freely distributable to the simulation community. How can we ensure that this effort is digestible by the legal departments of these different parties such that the people involved can freely code?

    Read the article

  • Licensing a project

    - by PhaDaPhunk
    Ok can someone clarify something for me ? Let's say I want to build a website and add publicity to it so I can make money out of my work. I would use Html5 for the interface and C# with Asp.net for the background programming. I would use Visual Studio as my IDE and SQL server as a database. This is just an example on the top of my head but I woudn't know where to start for the licenses. Do I need one : For VisualStudio and SQLServer only ? For VisualStudio, SQLServer and pay some kind of rights for Asp.net ? The whole package.. Both VisualStudio, SQlServer plus rights for Asp.net AND C# ? I know this question is a little vague but I really don't know where to start and the opinion of someone with experience int this might give me just the help I need to get started.

    Read the article

  • Software licensing template that gives room for restricting usage to certain industries/uses of software/source

    - by BSara
    *Why this question is not a duplicate of the questions specified as such: I did not ask if there was a license that restricted specific uses and I did not ask if I could rewrite every line of any open source project. I asked very specifically: "Does there exist X? If not, can I Y with Z?". As far as I can tell, the two questions that were specified as duplicates do not answer my specific question. Please remove the duplicate status placed on the question. I'm developing some software that I would like to be "semi" open source. I would like to allow for anyone to use my software/source unless they are using the software/source for certain purposes. For example, I don't want to allow usage of the software/source if it is being used to create, distribute, view or otherwise support pornography, illegal purposes, etc. I'm no lawyer and couldn't ever hope to write a license myself nor do I have to time to figure how to best do this. My question is this: Does there exist a freely available license or a template for a license that I can use to license my software under they conditions explained above just like one can use the Creative Commons licenses? If not, am I allowed to just alter one of Creative Commons licenses to meet my needs?

    Read the article

  • Application name licensing issue

    - by Praetorian
    Hi, I started writing an application for Windows Phone marketplace, at the time only making sure that the name I gave it wasn't being used by any other app on the marketplace. I just found out that the same name is being used by a, seemingly popular, SourceForge project. Is this a problem? I haven't released my app yet so I could rename it, but I really like the name and would prefer not to unless it is an issue.

    Read the article

  • Developing an iOS app for a single device - licensing issue

    - by bfavaretto
    I'm developing an iOS app for a museum as a freelancer. It's a very simple video player, to be installed on a single iPad that will be part of a permanent exhibition, basically acting as a kiosk. It turns out the iPad is the ideal device for that if you're looking for a small and affordable touchscreen. The problem is: as far as I can tell, none of the Apple Developer Program options available will allow me to distribute an app like that. The relevant options are (from the link above): iOS Developer Program ($99/year) Select this program if you would like to distribute apps on the App Store as an individual, sole proprietor, company, organization, government entity or educational institution. iOS Developer Enterprise Program ($299/year) Select this program if you would like to develop proprietary apps for internal distribution within your company, organization, government entity or educational institution. The regular program requires distribution through the App Store. The Enterprise version is for internal distribution within my own organization. Neither is the case here! It seems like I'm doomed to violate Apple's terms of service (and I can think of at least two ways of doing that: jailbreaking, or changing the iPad's date so it won't know the provisioning profile expired). Is that really so, or did I get the descriptions wrong? Has anyone here been in a similar situation?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >