Search Results

Search found 2457 results on 99 pages for 'bsd license'.

Page 2/99 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Using an open source non-free license

  - by wagglepoons

  Are there any projects/products out there that use an open source license that basically says "free for small companies" and "cost money for larger companies" in addition to "make modifications available"? (And are there any standard licenses with such a wording?) If I were to release a project under such a license, would it be automatically shunned by every developer on the face of the earth, or, assuming it is actually a useful project, does it have a fair chance at getting contributions from Joe Programmer? The second part of this question can easily become subjective, but any well argued point of view will be highly appreciated. For example, do dual licensed projects made by commercial entities have success with the open source communities?

  Read the article

• My new anti-patent BSD-based license: necessary and effective? [closed]

  - by paperjam

  I am writing multimedia software in a domain that is rife with software patents. I want to open source my software but only for the benefit of those who don't play the patent game, that is enthusiasts, small companies, research projects, etc. The idea is, if my code would infringe a software patent somewhere and a company pays to license that patent, they then lose the right to use and distribute my software. Now I detest license proliferation as much as anyone but I can't find an existing OSI approved license that does this. The GPL comes close, but it only restricts distribution, not use. I want to stop someone using my software should they obtain a patent license to do so. Does another license do this job? Is the wording below unambiguous? - I don't want a legal opinion, just whether it would be interpreted as I intend. Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [ three standard new-BSD conditions not shown here] * No patents are licensed from any third party in respect of redistribution or use of this software or its derivatives unless the patent license is arranged to permit free use and distribution by all. THIS SOFTWARE IS... [standard BSD disclaimer not shown here]

  Read the article

• License validation and calling home

  - by VitalyB

  I am developing an application that, when bought, can be activated using a license. Currently I am doing offline validation which is a bit troubling to me. I am aware there is nothing to do against cracks (i.e modified binaries), however, I am thinking to trying to discourage license-key pirating. Here is my current plan: When the user activates the software and after offline validation is successful, it tries to call home and validate the license. If home approves of the license or if home is unreachable, or if the user is offline, the license gets approved. If home is reached and tells the license is invalid, validation fails. Licensed application calls home the same way every time during startup (in background). If license is revoked (i.e pirated license or generated via keygen), the license get deactivated. This should help with piracy of licenses - An invalid license will be disabled and a valid license that was pirated can be revoked (and its legal owner supplied with new license). Pirate-users will be forced to use cracked version which are usually version specific and harder to reach. While it generally sounds good to me, I have some concerns: Users tend to not like home-calling and online validation. Would that kind of validation bother you? Even though in case of offline/failure the application stays licensed? It is clear that the whole scheme can be thwarted by going offline/firewall/etc. I think that the bother to do one of these is great enough to discourage casual license sharing, but I am not sure. As it goes in general with licensing and DRM variations, I am not sure the time I spend on that kind of protection isn't better spent by improving my product. I'd appreciate your input and thoughts. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to 'reproduce copyright` in an app?

  - by ohho

  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The above is quoted from a BSD licensed COPYING file. How can I "reproduce the above copyright" when I distribute my app in binary form? Should I put the COPYING file content in some Credit/About screen of my app or what? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to make a license apply to a whole library?

  - by Yannbane

  I'm creating a standard library for a programming language, and I'd like to license each and every single class or function in there under the MIT license, so they're completely FOSS. All of the files reside in a single directory. Would it be enough to put a LICENSE.txt file in the same directory, containing the MIT license? Do I need to say that the following license applies to all features of the library, or is the library itself considered to be a program?

  Read the article

• MPL 1.1 and APL 2.0 License compatibility

  - by Kenneth Cochran

  I am working a project that is licensed under the MPL 1.1 and would like to incorporate some code that is licensed under the APL 2.0. I know in 2010 Mozilla announced they were updating the MPL to make it more "Apache compatible" among other things. I'm no lawyer. Exactly what part(s) of the MPL 1.1 don't jive with the APL 2.0 and vice versa? The project has very few of its original contributers still actively involved so I doubt I'd be able to contact all of them to get permission to change the license.

  Read the article

• PC doesn't boot PC-BSD from USB

  - by turlando

  I've got a problem with a friend's PC: I'm installing a FreeBSD server and to make easier the installation for my friend I'm using the PC-BSD DVD. Surprise! The CD reader doesn't read DVDs, so I'm using a USB stick to perform the install. The PC seems supporting USB boot because I can choose it in the boot sequence, but the PC-BSD installation doesn't start, booting the OS installed in the primary HD. I have not physic access to the PC and I can't have at the moment more informations. What do you think about? Thanks and sorry for my terrible English. Tancredi Orlando.

  Read the article

• OpenSource license with commerial-use exemptions for the owner

  - by dbkk

  I'm looking for an open source license which grants me additional privileges. Features: Anyone can freely modify, fork, use the code, as long as they make their source changes publicly available. They can use it in other open source projects, but not in closed-source projects. Only I and entities I specifically designate can use the code as part of a closed-source application. I am also exempt from the duty to publish the source code changes. I'm not trying to forbid the commercial use, just to allow myself more flexibility to use the code, while still contributing to open source. I don't want to burn myself by being legally forbidden from using the libraries I wrote in my commercial projects. Large companies use such dual licenses to maintain an open source project, while also selling the premium version. Which licenses of this type are available? What caveats or obstacles exist?

  Read the article

• Can I remove all-caps and shorten the disclaimer on my License?

  - by stefano palazzo

  I am using the MIT License for a particular piece of code. Now, this license has a big disclaimer in all-caps: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF... ... I've seen a normally capitalised disclaimer on the zlib license (notice that it is above the license text), and even software with no disclaimer at all (which implies, i take it, that there is indeed a guarantee?), but i'd like some sourced advice by a trusted party. I just haven't found any. GNU's License notice for other files comes with this disclaimer: This file is offered as-is, without any warranty. Short and simple. My question therefore: Are there any trusted sources indicating that a short rather than long, and a normally spelled rather than capitalised disclaimer (or even one or the other) are safely usable in all of the jurisdictions I should be concerned with? If the answer turns out to be yes: Why not simply use the short license notice that the fsf proposes for readme-files and short help documents instead of the MIT License? Is there any evidence suggesting this short 'license' will not hold up? For the purposes of this question, the software is released in the European Union, should it make any difference.

  Read the article

• How to check if the license on the server is a TechNet License

  - by user28471

  I have a server machine with Windows 2008 Web Server running on it and I THINK I have been running it under the TechNet license. Now I need to turn it into a production server and I need to find out if I really am running it under a TechNet license so that I can upgrade it. But I can't seem to be able to check which license I am running the OS under. Is there a way to check this?

  Read the article

• Cryptographic Validation Explained

  - by MarkPearl

  We have been using LogicNP’s CryptoLicensing for some of our software and I was battling to understand how exactly the whole process worked. I was sent the following document which really helped explain it – so if you ever use the same tool it is well worth a read. Licensing Basics LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net is the most advanced and state-of-the art licensing and copy protection system you can use for your software. LogicNP CryptoLicensing System uses the latest cryptographic technology to generate and validate licenses. The cryptographic algorithm used is the RSA algorithm which consists of a pair of keys called as the generation key and the validation key. Data encrypted using the generation key can only be decrypted using the corresponding validation key. How does cryptographic validation work? When a new license project is created, a unique validation-generation key pair is created for the project. When LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net generates licenses, it encrypts the license settings using the generation key. The validation key can be safely distributed with your software and is used during validation. During license validation, LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net attempts to decrypt the encrypted license code using the validation key. If the decryption is successful, this means that the data was encrypted using the generation key, since only the corresponding validation key can decrypt data encrypted with the generation key. This further means that not only is the license valid but that it was generated by you and only you since nobody else has access to the generation key. Generation Key This key is used by CryptoLicensing Generator to generate encrypted license codes. This key is stored in the license project file, so the license project file must be kept secure and confidential and must be accorded the same care as any other critical asset such as source code. Validation Key This key is used for validating generated license codes. It is the same key displayed in the 'Get Validation Key And Code' dialog (Ctrl+K) and is used by your software when validating license codes (using LogicNP.CryptoLicensing.dll). Unlike the generation key, it is not necessary to keep this key secure and confidential. Note that the generation key pair is stored in the project file created by LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net, so it is very important to backup this file and to keep it secure. Once the file is lost, it is not possible to retrieve the key pair. FAQ Do I use the same validation key to validate all license codes? Yes, the validation key (and generation key) for the project remains the same; you use the same key to validate all license codes generated using the project. You can retrieve the validation key using the "Project" menu --> "Get Validation Key & Code" menu item. Can license codes generated using generation key from one project be validated using validation key of another project? No! Q. Is every generated license code unique? A. Yes, every license code generated by CryptoLicensing is guaranteed to be unique, even if you generate thousands of codes at a time. Q. What makes CryptoLicensing so secure? A. CryptoLicensing uses the latest cryptographic technology to generate and validate licenses. The cryptographic algorithm used is the RSA asymmetric key algorithm which can use upto 3072-bit keys. Given current computing power, it takes years to break a 3072-bit key. Q. Is is possible for a hacker to develop a keygen for my software? A. Impossible. The cryptographic algorithm used by CryptoLicensing consists of a pair of keys called as the generation key and the validation key. Data encrypted with one key can only be decrypted by the other key and vice versa. Licenses are generated using the generation key and validated using the validation key. Without the generation key, it is impossible to generate valid licenses. Q. What is the difference between validation key and generation key? Generation Key This key is used by CryptoLicensing Generator to generate encrypted license codes. This key is stored in the license project file, so the license project file must be kept secure and confidential and must be accorded the same care as any other critical asset such as source code. Validation Key This key is used for validating generated license codes. It is the same key displayed in the 'Get Validation Key And Code' dialog (Ctrl+K) and is used by your software when validating license codes (using LogicNP.CryptoLicensing.dll). Unlike the generation key, it is not necessary to keep this key secure and confidential. Q. Do I have to include the license project file (.licproj) with my software? A. No!!! This goes against the very essence of the security of the asymmetric cryptographic scheme because the project file contains both the validation and generation key. With your software, you only need to include the validation key which will be used to validate licenses generated by CryptoLicensing using the generation key. The license project file should be treated as any other valuable and confidential asset such as your source code. Q. Does the license service need the license project file? A. Yes. The license project file is needed whenever new licenses are generated (via the UI, via the API or via the license service). As just one example, the license service generates new machine-locked licenses when activated licenses are presented to it for activation, therefore the license service needs the license project file. Q. Is it possible to embed my own data in the generated licenses? A. Yes. You can embed any amount of additional data in the licenses. This data will have the same amount of security as the license code itself and will be tamper-proof. The embedded user data can be retrieved from your software. Q. What additional steps can I take to ensure that my software does not get cracked? A. There are many methods and techniques which can make it extremely difficult for a hacker to crack your software. See Writing Effective License Checking Code And Designing Effective Licenses for more information. Q. Why is the license service not working? A. The most common cause is not setting the CryptoLicense.LicenseServiceURL property before trying to validate a license. Make sure that this property is set to the correct URL where your license service is hosted. The most common cause after this is that the license project file on the web server where your license service is hosted is not the latest. This happens if you make changes to the license project (for example, set the 'Enable With Serials' setting for a profile), but don't upload the updated project file to your web server. Q. Why are my serials not working? Serial codes require the user of a license service. See Using Serial Codes for more details. Also see the earlier question 'Why is the license service not working?' Q. Is the same validation key used to validate license codes generated from different profiles. A. Yes. Profiles are just pre specified license settings for quickly generating licenses having those settings. The actual license code is still generated using the license project's cryptographic generation key and thus, can be validated using the project's validation key. Q. Why are changes made to a profile not getting saved? A. Simply changing license settings via UI and saving the license project does not save those license settings to the active profile. You must first save the license settings to a profile using the Save/Save As command from the Profiles menu (see above). Q. Why is validation of activated licenses failing from CryptoLicensing Generator, but works from my software? A. Make sure that you have specified the URL of the license service using the Project Properties Dialog. Also see the earlier question 'Why is the license service not working?' Q. How can I extend the trial period of my customer? A. To extend the evaluation period of the customer, simply send him a new license code specifying the desired evaluation limits. Evaluation information such as the current used days, executions, etc are stored in garbled form in a registry location which is derived from the license code. Therefore, when a new license code is used, the old evaluation information will not be used and a new evaluation period will be started.

  Read the article

• What's the best license for my website?

  - by John Maxim

  I have developed a unique website but do not have a lot of fund to protect it with trademark or patents. I'm looking for suggestions so that when my supervisor gets my codes, some laws restrict anyone from copying it and claim their work. I'm in the middle of thinking, making the application a commercial one or never allowing it to be copied at all. What kind of steps am I required to take in order to make full measurements so my applications are fully-protected? I've come across a few, one under my consideration is MIT license. Some say we can have a mixture of both commercial and MIT. I would also like to be able to distribute some functions so it can be modified by others but I'd still retain the ownership. Last but not least, it's confusing when I think of protecting the whole website, and protecting codes by codes in division. How should we go about this? Thanks. N.B I have to pass it over to the supervisor as this is a Uni project. I need this to be done within 2 weeks. So time to get my App protected is a factor here.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Public License Question

  - by ryanzec

  Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

  Read the article

• Difference between linux and BSD

  - by karthi-27

  Hi all, I want to know the differences between Linux and BSD .Which is efficient. Because they have some of the similarities with them.

  Read the article

• License for website article

  - by queueoverflow

  On my personal website, I have some technical ideas and some source code snippets that I share with everybody. To make it clean that everyone can use those snippets as they like, as long as I do not have to provide any warranty, I would like to add a license to the some of the texts. The bigger programs come with GPLv2+, which I think is a reasonable license for free code. Does it make sense to use the MIT License or the GNU Free Documentation License for these texts or should I just go with CC-BY? I am a German citizen, so I heard that the American licenses do not really apply to me at all. If so, that would be another advantage for the Creative Commons Family of License.

  Read the article

• IEEE 1003.1 licenses compared

  - by LarsOn

  Software or real people can technically copy a BSD software, install it and sell it. What are technical and licence advantages and disadvantages compared to taking Linux or other 1003.1 and delivering or selling it? Which license is most flexible for instance when selling or delivering a computer BSD licence seems more flexible than Linux and other specs also interesting (Haiku and likewise). Typical case someone wants a computer with which we can deliver BSD or Linux quite similar weighing licence flexibility (BSD seems best licence) and functions (Linux seems have most functions)

  Read the article

• Which FOSS licenses permit binary distribution within for-sale products?

  - by azheglov

  Suppose your for-sale software product uses some free open-source library at runtime. Therefore, you need to distribute the FOSS product in the unchanged, binary form with your product. Which open-source license permits such distribution and under what conditions? I'm particularly interested in three licenses: Apache 2 MS-PL MIT

  Read the article

• License Requirements for Including Dual-Licensed Open-Source Software

  - by Rick Roth

  How do you opt into one software license and not the other when the distributor gives the consumer more than one choice? For example I would like to use the DataTables JavaScript library in my web application. According to their web site, "DataTables is dual licensed under the GPL v2 license or a BSD (3-point) license." Furthermore, the source code of the JavaScript library has this text that calls out both licenses: /** * @summary DataTables * @description Paginate, search and sort HTML tables * @version 1.9.4 * @file jquery.dataTables.js * @author Allan Jardine (www.sprymedia.co.uk) * @contact www.sprymedia.co.uk/contact * * @copyright Copyright 2008-2012 Allan Jardine, all rights reserved. * * This source file is free software, under either the GPL v2 license or a * BSD style license, available at: * http://datatables.net/license_gpl2 * http://datatables.net/license_bsd * * This source file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY * or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the license files for details. * * For details please refer to: http://www.datatables.net */ Finally, the web pages with the licensing text (e.g. the DataTables BSD license page) has this statement: "DataTables is made available under both the GPL v2 license and a BSD (3-point) style license. You can select which one you wish to use the DataTables code under." My specific question is "how do you select which one you want to use." In my case, I want to only use the BSD license and I want to make it explicitly clear that I do not opt into the GPL v2 license in any way. How do you do that and have it hold up to legal challenge?

  Read the article

• Publishing an open source project as a public repository and applying a license

  - by Anton

  If I publish my project now, with added license information, will the license still apply to the project if one goes back a few commits in the history to a state where I hadn't yet added any license information? [Relevant answer][1] [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2468566/correctly-applying-an-open-source-license/2468663#2468663 Relevant answer This suggests that unless there is some license information available, no rights are granted. Is that true in this case too? Or will the license I added in the last commit also apply to older commits?

  Read the article

• MSSQL 2008 License for both Web application and desktop application

  - by Bayonian

  I have ASP.NET web application using MSSQL express at the moment. But I want to use MSSQL 2008. But I'm NOT sure about what kind of license I should buy. I'm considering the Processor License according to this document. I'm not sure if it's the right choice. If I buy User CAL. should I buy only 1 CAL for my web application? or for all visitors who visit my web site? I also have a Windows desktop application that write/read data from the server. Do I need a seperate license with for this Windows application if I buy Processor License. Thank you for suggestion.

  Read the article

• MSSQL 2008 License for both Web application and desktop application [closed]

  - by Angkor Wat

  I have ASP.NET web application using MSSQL express at the moment. But I want to use MSSQL 2008. But I'm NOT sure about what kind of license I should buy. I'm considering the Processor License according to this document. I'm not sure if it's the right choice. If I buy User CAL. should I buy only 1 CAL for my web application? or for all visitors who visit my web site? I also have a Windows desktop application that write/read data from the server. Do I need a seperate license with for this Windows application if I buy Processor License. Thank you for suggestion.

  Read the article

• pix 501 encryption license reduces inside hosts to 10

  - by user7764

  Hi I have an unlimted pix 501 with no encryption license installed. I have applied for and received a 3DES license. When I install the 3DES license, the inside hosts goes from unlimited to 10. Thankfully I had the presence of mind to keep a note of the old activation key. Is this normal behaviour? I would have thought not as I bought the pix as unlimited. Thanks Cammy

  Read the article

• Recover license for Photoshop CS3

  - by Buddy

  At the company I work at, an employee was let go. His laptop was a company laptop with Photoshop CS3 installed on it. Photoshop was deactivated so it could be installed on another computer. The license was bought online and emailed to someone, however, that computer crashed and the email with the license is lost. Is there a way to recover the license from the laptop? Are we better off contacting Adobe's customer support?

  Read the article

• What are the legal considerations when forking a BSD-licensed project?

  - by Thomas Owens

  I'm interested in forking a project released under a two-clause BSD license: Copyright (c) 2010 {copyright holder} All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer at the end. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. (2) Neither the name of {copyright holder} nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. DISCLAIMER THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I've never forked a project before, but this project is very similar to something that I need/want. However, I'm not sure how far I'll get, so my plan is to pull the latest from their repository and start working. Maybe, eventually, I'll get it to where I want it, and be able to release it. Is this the right approach? How, exactly, does this impact forking of the project? How do I track who owns what components or sections (what's copyright me, what's copyright the original creators, once I start stomping over their code base)? Can I fork this project? What must I do prior to releasing, and when/if I decide to release the software derived from this BSD-licensed work?

  Read the article

• Unicode license

  - by Eric Grange

  Unicode Terms of use (http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html) state that any software that uses their data files (or a modification of it) should carry the Unicode license references. It seems to me that most Unicode libraries have functions to check if a character is a digit, a letter, a symbol, etc. ans so will contain a modification of the Unicode Data Files (usually in the form of tables). Does that mean the license applies and all applications that use such Unicode libraries should carry the license? I've checked around, and it appears very few Unicode software do carry the license, though arguable most of those that didn't carry the license were from companies that were members of the Unicode consortium (do they get license exemption?). Some (f.i. Mozilla) are only "Liaison Members", and while their software do not carry the license (AFAICT), they do obviously rely on data derived from those data files. Is Mozilla in breach of the license? Should we carry the license in all apps that include any form of advanced Unicode support? (ie. are bound to rely on the Unicode data files) Or is there some form of broad exemption? (since very very few software out there carries the license)

  Read the article

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