Search Results

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

Page 28/99 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Ms-PL Source Release for System.Web.Mvc 2

    Hot on the heels of the release of ASP.NET MVC 2 yesterday, Im happy to announce that we are releasing the source code to ASP.NET MVC 2 under the Ms-PL license, an OSI approved Open Source license. This continues the trend from nearly a year ago when we released ASP.NET MVC 1.0 under the Ms-PL. You can read my blog post there to learn more about the hard work that goes into such releases. While Im one who loves lawyer jokes, I do appreciate the work that they do (one of my best friends is a lawyer)...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Got an idea for an application, but part of it is patented, any suggestions?

    - by tekiegreg
    Hi there, so I've been working on developing an idea for an application that I think has the potential to be successful, however after some initial research I've discovered that at least part of my ideas are covered by a patent out there, the patent in particular is held by a really large company (I don't want to give away specifics for fear I'd draw their attention for sure). I'm debating a few options: 1) Develop patents around my ideas that don't conflict and maybe approach the company in question for a license exchange 2) Just approach them for a license outright 3) Just develop around it anyways and hope for the best :-p What have other people done in these situations? Are companies generally willing to grant patent licenses? Are they willing to grant them at reasonable prices? Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How can I accept the agreement for ttf-mscorefonts-installer?

    - by Magic
    After a recent update, ttf-mscorefonts-installer prompted me to accept its license agreement. For some reason my terminal will not allow me to accept, or for some reason I am pressing the wrong hotkey... I've tried every letter on the keyboard and Enter among others... I'm sure there is a very simple and obvious solution to this. I've also just tried to remove the package completely however the terminal states that due to the package not being correctly installed, I should reinstall the package before removing it. Very frustrating! Essentially, because I cannot successfully install this package, I can't really ever upgrade my system because I always have to end up terminating the terminal with the license agreement (thus the upgrade fails).

    Read the article

  • What are reasons for Unity3D's owners to force rich guys buying Pro version?

    - by mhambra
    Well, I have to say that Unity is a really nice thing that can save one a dozen of hours on coding (letting instantly work on gameplay). But what's the idea of forcing (EULA) any party, which made over 100k last fiscal year, to purchase Pro instead of using normal edition!? It feels that this kind of licensing provides hidden benefits to rich guys over me, poor sloven, who can afford buying $3.5k license but obviously will not receive any additional cookies from it. And, by the way, anyone estimated how much Unity's source + Playstation + Xbox license will cost?

    Read the article

  • Glassfish alive or dead? WebLogic SE cost is less than Glassfish!

    - by JuergenKress
    Is a hot discussion in the community in the last few days! Send us your opinion on tiwtter @wlscommunity #Glassfish #WebLogicCommunity We posted theGlassFishStrategy.pptx at our WebLogic Community Workspace (WebLogic Community membership required). Please read also the Java EE and GlassFish Server Roadmap Update Bruno Borges ?Another great article covering story about #GlassFish. Comments starting to be reasonable ;-) 6 facts helped a lot http://adtmag.com/articles/2013/11/08/oracle-drops-glassfish.aspx … Adam Bien ?What Oracle Could Do For GlassFish Now: Move the sources to GitHub (GitHub is the most popular collaboration p... http://bit.ly/1d1uo24 JAXenter.com ?Oracle evangelist: “GlassFish Open Source Edition is not dead” http://jaxenter.com/oracle-evangelist-glassfish-open-source-edition-is-not-dead-48830.html … GlassFish 6 Facts About #GlassFish Announcement and the Future of #JavaEE http://bit.ly/1bbSVPf via @brunoborges David Blevins ?In support of our #GlassFish friends and open source in general: Feed the Fish http://www.tomitribe.com/blog/2013/11/feed-the-fish/ … #JavaEE #opensource #manifesto GlassFish ?GlassFish Server Open Source Edition 4.1 is scheduled for 2014. Version 5.0 as impl for #JavaEE8 https://blogs.oracle.com/theaquarium/entry/java_ee_and_glassfish_server … #Community focused C2B2 Consulting ?C2B2 continues to offer support for your operational #JEE applications running on #GlassFish http://blog.c2b2.co.uk/2013/11/oracle-dropping-commercial-support-of.html … #Java Markus Eisele ?RT @InfoQ: #GlassFish Commercial Edition is Dead http://bit.ly/17eFB0Z < at least they agree to my points... Adam Bien suggests: Move the sources to GitHub (GitHub is the most popular collaboration platform). It is more likely for an individual to contribute via GitHub, than the current infrastructure. Introduce a business friendlier license like e.g. the Apache license. Companies interesting in providing added value (and commercial support) on top of existing sources would appreciate it. Implement GitHub-based, open source, CI system with nightly builds. Introduce a transparent voting process / pull-request acceptance process. Release more frequently. Keep https://glassfish.java.net as the main hub. C2B2 offers Glassfish support by Steve Millidge Oracle have just announced that commercial support for GlassFish 4 will not be available from Oracle. In light of this announcement I thought I would put together some thoughts about how I see this development. I think the key word in this announcement is "commercial", nowhere does Oracle announce the "death of GlassFish" in contrary Oracle reaffirm; GlassFish Server Open Source Edition continues to be the strategic foundation for Java EE reference implementation going forward. And for developers, updates will be delivered as needed to continue to deliver a great developer experience for GlassFish Server Open Source Edition so GlassFish is not about to go away soon. In a similar fashion RedHat do not provide commercial support for WildFly and only provide commercial support for JBoss EAP. Admittedly JBoss EAP and WildFly are much closer together than GlassFish and WebLogic but WildFly and JBoss EAP are absolutely NOT the same thing. The key going forward to the viability of GlassFish as a production platform is how the GlassFish community develops; How often does the community release binary builds? How open is the community to bug fixes? How much engineering resource does Oracle commit to GlassFish? At this stage we just don't know the answers to these questions. If the GlassFish open source project continues on it's current trajectory without a commercial support offering then I don't see much of a problem. Oracle just have to work harder to sell migration paths to WebLogic in the same way as RedHat have to sell migration paths from WildFly to JBoss EAP. In the meantime C2B2 continues to offer support for your operational JEE applications running on GlassFish and we will endeavour to work with the community to get any bugs fixed. The key difference is we can no longer back our Expert Support with a support contract from Oracle for patches and fixes for any release greater than 3.x. Read the complete article here. 6 Facts About GlassFish Announcement By Bruno.Borges Fact #1 - GlassFish Open Source Edition is not dead GlassFish Server Open Source Edition will remain the reference implementation of Java EE. The current trunk is where an implementation for Java EE 8 will flourish, and this will become the future GlassFish 5.0. Calling "GlassFish is dead" does no good to the Java EE ecosystem. The GlassFish Community will remain strong towards the future of Java EE. Without revenue-focused mind, this might actually help the GlassFish community to shape the next version, and set free from any ties with commercial decisions. Fact #2 - OGS support is not over As I said before, GlassFish Server Open Source Edition will continue. Main change is that there will be no more future commercial releases of Oracle GlassFish Server. New and existing OGS 2.1.x and 3.1.x commercial customers will continue to be supported according to the Oracle Lifetime Support Policy. In parallel, I believe there's no other company in the Java EE business that offers commercial support to more than one build of a Java EE application server. This new direction can actually help customers and partners, simplifying decision through commercial negotiations. Fact #3 - WebLogic is not always more expensive than OGS Oracle GlassFish Server ("OGS") is a build of GlassFish Server Open Source Edition bundled with a set of commercial features called GlassFish Server Control and license bundles such as Java SE Support. OGS has at the moment of this writing the pricelist of U$ 5,000 / processor. One information that some bloggers are mentioning is that WebLogic is more expensive than this. Fact 3.1: it is not necessarily the case. The initial edition of WebLogic is called "Standard Edition" and falls into a policy where some “Standard Edition” products are licensed on a per socket basis. As of current pricelist, US$ 10,000 / socket. If you do the math, you will realize that WebLogic SE can actually be significantly more cost effective than OGS, and a customer can save money if running on a CPU with 4 cores or more for example. Quote from the price list: “When licensing Oracle programs with Standard Edition One or Standard Edition in the product name (with the exception of Java SE Support, Java SE Advanced, and Java SE Suite), a processor is counted equivalent to an occupied socket; however, in the case of multi-chip modules, each chip in the multi-chip module is counted as one occupied socket.” For more details speak to your Oracle sales representative - this is clearly at list price and every customer typically has a relationship with Oracle (like they do with other vendors) and different contractual details may apply. And although OGS has always been production-ready for Java EE applications, it is no secret that WebLogic has always been more enterprise, mission critical application server than OGS since BEA. Different editions of WLS provide features and upgrade irons like the WebLogic Diagnostic Framework, Work Managers, Side by Side Deployment, ADF and TopLink bundled license, Web Tier (Oracle HTTP Server) bundled licensed, Fusion Middleware stack support, Oracle DB integration features, Oracle RAC features (such as GridLink), Coherence Management capabilities, Advanced HA (Whole Service Migration and Server Migration), Java Mission Control, Flight Recorder, Oracle JDK support, etc. Fact #4 - There’s no major vendor supporting community builds of Java EE app servers There are no major vendors providing support for community builds of any Open Source application server. For example, IBM used to provide community support for builds of Apache Geronimo, not anymore. Red Hat does not commercially support builds of WildFly and if I remember correctly, never supported community builds of former JBoss AS. Oracle has never commercially supported GlassFish Server Open Source Edition builds. Tomitribe appears to be the exception to the rule, offering commercial support for Apache TomEE. Fact #5 - WebLogic and GlassFish share several Java EE implementations It has been no secret that although GlassFish and WebLogic share some JSR implementations (as stated in the The Aquarium announcement: JPA, JSF, WebSockets, CDI, Bean Validation, JAX-WS, JAXB, and WS-AT) and WebLogic understands GlassFish deployment descriptors, they are not from the same codebase. Fact #6 - WebLogic is not for GlassFish what JBoss EAP is for WildFly WebLogic is closed-source offering. It is commercialized through a license-based plus support fee model. OGS although from an Open Source code, has had the same commercial model as WebLogic. Still, one cannot compare GlassFish/WebLogic to WildFly/JBoss EAP. It is simply not the same case, since Oracle has had two different products from different codebases. The comparison should be limited to GlassFish Open Source / Oracle GlassFish Server versus WildFly / JBoss EAP. Read the complete article here WebLogic Partner Community For regular information become a member in the WebLogic Partner Community please visit: http://www.oracle.com/partners/goto/wls-emea ( OPN account required). If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Mix Forum Wiki Technorati Tags: Glassfish,training,WebLogic,WebLogic Community,Oracle,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • What are some ramifications of open source software turning into closed source software? [on hold]

    - by Verrier
    If a company takes a permissively licensed open source application and then develops a closed source application from that by reworking extensive parts of the application, adding new features and applying bug fixes... Ignoring any license requirements... How does the transition happen and what can be done to prevent it beyond choosing a difference license? What are the (ethical or social) responsibilities for the company? (For example: Giving back to the open source project would be the ethical thing to do) If the open source version and closed source version are both available, how does the competition affect either product? Are there any examples of companies or products that have done this (either successfully or unsuccessfully) in the past? What was the community attitude toward those projects?

    Read the article

  • Where can I buy freely redistributable (creative commons) game assets?

    - by Erlend
    I'd like to know about any 3D asset shops out there that specialize in game assets and, most importantly, license their assets under an open license like Creative Commons or similarly permissive. We are looking to buy some professional looking assets for use and redistribution with our open source 3D game engine. The problem is that all the commercial 3D assets we've come by are only sold under very restrictive licenses, which won't allow us to include the models in our code repository (since free code hosting repositories require that all your data, including media, is open source or otherwise copyleft) nor in turn redistribute the assets as part of our downloadable SDK. I realize this sounds like a weak business idea, since users could just buy the asset and start sharing it with everyone. But somehow this has worked for hundreds of WordPress theme shops, so I was hoping maybe someone's trying similar things for commercial game assets.

    Read the article

  • Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

    - by DavidJFelix
    I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

    Read the article

  • Proper attribution of derived work in a GPL project

    - by Anton Gogolev
    This is a continuation of me rewriting GPL project. What will be the correct way of attributing my project as being a derivative of some other GPL-licensed project? So far I came up with: HgSharp Original Copyright Matt Mackall <[email protected]> and contributors. The following code is a derivative work of the code from the Mercurial project, which is licensed GPLv2. This code therefore is also licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License, verison 2. For information on the license of this code when distributed with and used in conjunction with the other modules in the HgSharp project, please see the root-level COPYING file. Copyright 2011-2012 Anton Gogolev <[email protected]>

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create and distribute an app for the BlackBerry Playbook that doesn't go into App World?

    - by Drackir
    My company is looking to create an app that we'll use internally on several (about 20) BlackBerry Playbooks. We don't want it to be put up on App World because it's just an internal application. I'm wondering if there are any: Costs involved with this outside of paying a programmer to develop it - i.e. Are there any license fees, deployment fees, etc. License issues involved with deploying the app to multiple Playbooks without deploying it to App World Limitations on functionality of the app Other things we should be taking into consideration If it matters, the app will be collecting information and downloading it to a computer via USB.

    Read the article

  • How to incorporate existing open source software from a licensing perspective?

    - by Matt
    I'm working on software that uses the following libraries: Biopython SciPy NumPy All of the above have licenses similar to MIT or BSD. Three scenarios: First, if I don't redistribute those dependencies, and only my code, then all I need is my own copyright and license (planing on using the MIT License) for my code. Correct? What if I use py2exe or py2app to create a binary executable to distribute so as to make it easy for people to run the application without needing to install python and all the dependencies. Of course this also means that my binary file(s) contains python itself (along with any other packages I might have performed a pip install xyz). What if I bundle Biopython, SciPy, and NumPy binaries in my package? In the latter two cases, what do I need to do to comply with copyright laws.

    Read the article

  • Is Java Open?

    - by EmbeddedInsider
    One way to answer- “which one”  Brew, IBM, Nokia, Android?   Well lets look at the real deal- Sun Java.  How will this work for embedded devices: DEFINITIONS…. The use of Software in systems and solutions that provide dedicated functionality … or designed for use in embedded or function-specific software applications, for example but not limited to: Software embedded in or bundled with industrial control systems, wireless mobile telephones, wireless handheld devices, netbooks, kiosks, TV/STB, Blu-ray Disc devices, telematics and network control switching equipment, printers and storage management systems, and other related systems are excluded from this definition and not licensed under this Agreement. http://www.java.com/en/download/license.jsp Now, the interesting thing is the license between Sun and the people with Java clones.  Does that pass on this exclusion? Lawrence Ricci www.EmbeddedInsider.com

    Read the article

  • OWB 11.2.0.2: Managing Use of Optional OWB Features

    - by antonio romero
    Most OWB users know that parts of Warehouse Builder are covered with the database license and others require additional options (such as the Oracle Data Integrator Enterprise Edition license). Warehouse Builder 11.2.0.2 adds the ability to disable optional feature groups. This lets you avoid the inadvertent use of most licensed features at the repository level.  This capability is accessed through the 11.2.0.2 Repository Assistant. We’ll look at the basics here. There’s also a new whitepaper that details which features are in the different feature groups associated with licenses. Read on to find out more. In Repository Assistant in 11.2.0.2, in Step 2 (“Choose Operation”), you will see a new task, “Manage Optional Features.” This is where you choose which features to enable or disable.

    Read the article

  • SilverlightShow for 06-12 Dec 2010

    - by Dave Campbell
    In an effort to get some synergy in the Silverlight community, the SilverlightShow folks and I have decided to share some information. As always, I'm running a bit behind, so I get to post first with the material they provided to me :) Check out the five most popular news at SilverlightShow for last week (06 - 12 Dec 2010). The news that hit the top is the announcement for the upcoming SilverlightShow webinar with Gill Cleeren [which I posted about a couple weeks ago] (check other webinars Gill delivered for SilverlightShow) and the free Telerik license given away to attendees. Michael Crump's digest of Silverlight 5 news announced at Firestarter was the next most attention-grabbing news. Here is SilverlightShow's weekly top 5: Join our next webinar and win a license for Telerik RadControls for Silverlight Silverlight 5 - What's New (Including Screenshots & Code Snippets) Glossy TextBlock Custom Control For Windows Phone WP7 development vs iOS, Android and mobile Web Silverlight Simple Drag And Drop / Or Browse View Model / MVVM File Upload Control Visit and bookmark SilverlightShow... they've got a lot of good things happening over there. Stay in the 'Light

    Read the article

  • Is Java free/open source or not?

    - by user1598390
    On November 13, 2006, Sun released much of Java as free and open source software, (FOSS), under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). On May 8, 2007, Sun finished the process, making all of Java's core code available under free software/open-source distribution terms, aside from a small portion of code to which Sun did not hold the copyright. OpenJDK (Open Java Development Kit) is a free and open source implementation of the Java programming language. It is the result of an effort Sun Microsystems began in 2006. The implementation is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) with a linking exception. Why there are still people that say Java is not open source or free as in free speech ? Am I missing something? Is Java still privative ?

    Read the article

  • Is Java free/open source or it isn't?

    - by user1598390
    On November 13, 2006, Sun released much of Java as free and open source software, (FOSS), under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). On May 8, 2007, Sun finished the process, making all of Java's core code available under free software/open-source distribution terms, aside from a small portion of code to which Sun did not hold the copyright. OpenJDK (Open Java Development Kit) is a free and open source implementation of the Java programming language. It is the result of an effort Sun Microsystems began in 2006. The implementation is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) with a linking exception. Why there are still people that say Java is not open source or free as in free speech ? Am I missing something? Is Java still privative ?

    Read the article

  • The Case for Complimentary Software Copies

    - by GGBlogger
    As the Geriatric Geek you can understand that I’ve been writing and studying for over 60 years. That means that I’ve seen insane changes in the computer software industry. I’ve made the joke that I get a new college education every 6 months or so. Of course that’s an exaggeration but it doesn’t make the feeling go away. I have a long standing and strong relationship with Microsoft so I’m armed with virtually every tool they make. It also means that I have access to tons of training material. But here’s the rub… Last year I started a definitive read of Professional Visual Basic 2008. The purpose was to fill in holes in my understanding of various things. I’m currently on page 1119 of some 1400 pages. During this sojourn I’ve decided that the future is web related which is to say that the future of “thick client” applications running as Windows applications is likely to slowly disappear. To that end I’ve taken a side trip or two into the world of ASP (including XML), Silverlight and cloud development. After carefully avoiding (that’s tongue in cheek) XML for years I finally had to bite the bullet, so to speak, and start learning XML in earnest. The most recent result of that was trail downloads of Altova’s MissionKit 2010 for Software Architects and Liquid Technologies Liquid XML Studio Developer Edition. These are both beautiful products and I want to learn them and write about them. Now comes the rub… While 30 day evaluations are generous in allowing casual users to assess these technologies for purchase they are NOT long enough to allow an author to evaluate, learn and ultimately write about them. Even if I devoted the full 30 days to learning, using and writing about say Altova’s suite I wouldn’t have enough time. Liquid XML may be a little easier to learn (one product as opposed to 8).  Add to that the fact that I frequently get sidetracked to add to my kit and it really blows out. It can be extremely frustrating when I’ve devoted hours to a project and suddenly discover that to complete it I will either need to purchase a license or abandon the project. Since my life blood does not depend on the product I end up abandoning the project and moving on. So to the folks from whom I request complimentary copies… I guarantee that if I convert your product to doing paid development work I will purchase a license to do that but as long as I am using your product to study for the purpose of writing samples, teaching use or otherwise promoting your product to other paying customers I will ask that you give me a license so that I can do that without facing the dread expiration of a 30 day trial.

    Read the article

  • GPL'ing code of a third party?

    - by Mark
    I am facing the following dilemma at the moment. I am using code from a scientific paper in a commercial project. So basically I copied and pasted the code from the paper's pdf into my code editor and use it in my own code. The code in the paper does not have any copy restrictions or license(like the GPL) so I thought I would be ok using it in a commercial project. However, I have seen several gpl licensed open source projects that use the exact same code from the paper to the point of having the same variable names like in the paper. So what happened here is that a gpl license was put on a third parties non gpl'ed code. Are these open source projects in violation of the gpl or would I be in violation of the gpl because I use code which has been gpl'ed? My common sense tells me it is not allowed to gpl somebody elses non-gpl'ed (like in this case from the paper) code but I though I would ask anyway.

    Read the article

  • How does the GPL static vs. dynamic linking rule apply to interpreted languages?

    - by ekolis
    In my understanding, the GPL prohibits static linking from non-GPL code to GPL code, but permits dynamic linking from non-GPL code to GPL code. So which is it when the code in question is not linked at all because the code is written in an interpreted language (e.g. Perl)? It would seem to be too easy to exploit the rule if it was considered dynamic linking, but on the other hand, it would also seem to be impossible to legally reference GPL code from non-GPL code if it was considered static! Compiled languages at least have a distinction between static and dynamic linking, but when all "linking" is just running scripts, it's impossible to tell what the intent is without an explicit license! Or is my understanding of this issue incorrect, rendering the question moot? I've also heard of a "classpath exception" which involves dynamic linking; is that not part of the GPL but instead something that can be added on to it, so dynamic linking is only allowed when the license includes this exception?

    Read the article

  • Got an idea for an application, but part of it is patented, any suggestions?

    - by tekiegreg
    so I've been working on developing an idea for an application that I think has the potential to be successful, however after some initial research I've discovered that at least part of my ideas are covered by a patent out there, the patent in particular is held by a really large company (I don't want to give away specifics for fear I'd draw their attention for sure). I'm debating a few options: 1) Develop patents around my ideas that don't conflict and maybe approach the company in question for a license exchange 2) Just approach them for a license outright 3) Just develop around it anyways and hope for the best :-p What have other people done in these situations? Are companies generally willing to grant patent licenses? Are they willing to grant them at reasonable prices? Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Using a particular font in a commercial game

    - by RCIX
    I'm working on a game I intend to sell, and I want to use this font. The license says: "You may NOT copy or distribute the font outside of the licensed household, company, school or institution. Please ask external contacts who want to use the font to purchase their own license at www.CheapProFonts.com." However, my plans are to use a tool to output a texture using this font to use as a bitmap font in my game. Does this mean I can do so, and sell my game with the font in it?

    Read the article

  • Is it legal to develop a game using D&D rules?

    - by Max
    For a while now I've been thinking about trying my hand at creating a game similar in spirit and execution to Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and offshoots. I'd rather not face the full bulk of work in implementing my own RPG system - I'd like to use D&D rules. Now, reading about the subject it seems there is something called "The License" which allows a company to brand a game as D&D. This license seems to be exclusive, and let's just say I don't have the money to buy it :p. Is it still legal for me to implement and release such a game? Commercially or open-source? I'm not sure exactly which edition would fit the best, but since Baldur's Gate is based of 2nd edition, could I go ahead an implement that? in short: what are the issues concerning licensing and publishing when it comes to D&D? Also: Didn't see any similar question...

    Read the article

  • What does "GPL with classpath exception" mean in practice?

    - by Thilo
    Oracle seems to license all their Java-related open source code under the GPL with a classpath exception. From what I understand, this seems to allow to combine these libraries with your own code into products that do not have to be covered by the GPL. How does this work? What are examples of how I can and cannot use these classes? Why was this new license used as opposed to the LGPL, which seems to allow for pretty much the same things, but is better established and understood? What are the differences to the LGPL?

    Read the article

  • How do I give proper attribution when distributing my modified Ambiance theme?

    - by WarriorIng64
    I made a modified version of 12.04's Ambiance that uses a dark sidebar for Nautilus, and I would like to redistribute it via e.g. gnome-look.org. From the Launchpad page for the light-themes package, it says the themes are available under a Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. The way I understand it, I can distribute my modified theme so long as I provide proper attribution for it and place it under the same license. In this case, who do I attribute as the author of the original theme and where/how should I display this attribution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >