Search Results

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

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

• BSD route(8) MAN page bug

  - by Farseeker

  http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=route Route is a utility used to manually manipulate the network routing tables. It normally is not needed, as a system routing table management daemon such as routed(8), should tend to this task. ... BUGS The first paragraph may have slightly exaggerated routed(8)'s abilities. Is this really a "bug", or some developer's attempt at humour?

  Read the article

• Clone ports from bsd installation to another

  - by Andor

  I have a production FreeBSD webserver which I would like to "clone" to create a development/preproduction server. I've installed a clean FreeBSD server and now I would like to know if there's an easy way to list all the ports installed on the production server, get that list out and input that to the new server, so I can easily install all the same apps and same versions than in the production machine. We are using: FreeBSD 7.1 portmaster as a port manager

  Read the article

• Straw Poll - K&R vs BSD

  - by Gordon Mackie JoanMiro

  No holy wars please - (ultimately a standardised and consistently-observed house-style on a project always wins out whatever is chosen), but I am genuinely interested in the preferences of people for K&R style formatting: public bool CompareObjects(object first, object second) { if (first == second) { return true; } else { return false; } } over BSD style: public bool CompareObjects(object first, object second) { if (first == second) { return true; } else { return false; } } K&R seems to be making a bit of a comeback recently (I'm an old programmer, so I've seen these things fluctuate); do people think K&R looks more professional, more cool, more readable, is compactness when viewing more important than extending the structure down the screen? Please use the 2 community wiki answers below to vote for K&R vs. BSD. Polls shouldn't earn rep for the first person that manages to type "BSD FTW!" My God! This question is nearly 2 years old and people are still down-voting it; ENOUGH!

  Read the article

• Converting MSDN license to full, commercial license

  - by alex

  I had to throw a machine together in a bit of a hurry- to replace a machine that suddenly failed (no one had bothered to keep a "warm" backup) It has Windows Server 2008 and SQL 2008 The snag is, I installed them off our MSDN subscription media, due to me not having "licensed" software. I need to put this machine into production. We are in the process of buying the licenses from a MS reseller now. Is there a way to "convert" the MSDN license to production on both Windows Server and SQL?

  Read the article

• Which opensource license to use to retain commercial rights for myself.

  - by Quigrim

  I am starting an opensource project. I want to allow the following: Free for noncommercial use, bins and source mods, like with the GPL, but I would like to retain commercial rights for myself, and provide another license for commercial use for customers who prefer that option. The number of licensing options seem a bit overwhelming. So my question is: Which opensource license should I use? Which commercial license should I use, if there are any standard ones available? Or should I come up with my own one here?

  Read the article

• What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?

  - by Yannbane

  To quote the license itself: Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I am not exactly sure what the bold part implies. Lets say that I'm creating some library, and I license it under the MIT license. Someone decides to fork that library and to create a closed-source, commercial version. According to the license, he should be free to do that. However, what does he additionally need to do under those terms? Credit me as the creator? I guess the "above copyright notice" refers to the "Copyright (C) [..." part, but, wouldn't that list me as the author of his code (although I technically typed out the code)? And wouldn't including the "permission notice" in what is now his library practically license it under the same conditions that I licensed my own library in? Or, am I interpreting this incorrectly? Does that refer to my obligations to include the copyright and the permission notice?

  Read the article

• Unable to deactivate windows xp by modifying the license in the registry

  - by ConorWalsh

  I need to deactivate windows xp so I can set it up with a new license. Every tutorial I've visited follow the same steps. (Example http://www.ehow.com/how_6665848_deactivate-windows-xp-pro.html) The tutorials state that the 00BE timer file located in the registry needs to be modified. It is found by going to the registry and navigating through "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE," "Software," "Microsoft," "WindowsNT," "CurrentVersion" and "WPAEvents." After the file is modified Windows should be deactivated. However it never does. The value changes but when I run the command to add a new license key it states "windows is already activated". I've done this before on other machines at it worked fine. I can't find any other methods to change the license in XP. Has anyone ever had this issue or knows of another way of deactivating windows?

  Read the article

• Propietary modules within GPL and BSD kernels

  - by Francisco Garcia

  Since the Linux kernel is GPL and not LGPL I suppose that it is illegal to link proprietary code to it. How does the industry circumvents this? I would expect that the GPL license will force any developer to release under GPL driver and/or kernel module. Maybe I am confused and implementing a new module is not really linking against the kernel code ??? How do companies deal with this? Maybe linking the other way around (from kernel to their binaries)? On the other hand there is the BSD kernel. Where you are free to link protected IP. Can you get a better design implementing your drivers within a BSD kernel? Is there any design restriction when implementing drivers for GPL kernels?

  Read the article

• What is considered to be a "modification" of sources under the BSD license?

  - by Den

  I have a question about the 3-clause BSD license based on it's Wiki description. It states: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... What is understood by "modification"? Specifically I am interested whether any/all of the following is considered as such modification: 1) reading the original sources and then re-implementing; 2) reading the original sources, waiting for a year and then re-implementing something based on whatever you could remember; 3) direct and very significant "complete" refactoring of the original sources.

  Read the article

• what do i have to do when using libraries with BSD license?

  - by androidmaster

  I am making a game using Lwjgl and this is their license. What I don't understand is what must I do? I plan on making a game and distributing it, not the source code just the .jar file and maybe sell it for a few dollars. It said that I must retain the copyright, so would that mean I must include the doc folder that the library comes with in the jar or do I have to make something in-game like credits and say "made with lwjgl"?

  Read the article

• Open Source: Why not release into Public Domain?

  - by Goosey

  I have recently been wondering why so little code is ever released as 'Public Domain'. MIT and BSD licenses are becoming extremely popular and practically only have the restriction of license propagation. The reasons I can think of so far are: Credit - aka Prestige, Street-cred, 'Props', etc. Authors don't want usage of the code restricted, but they also want credit for creating the code. Two problems with this reason. I have seen projects copy/paste the MIT or BSD license without adding the 'Copyright InsertNameHere' thereby making it a tag-along license that doesn't give them credit. I have talked to authors who say they don't care about people giving them credit, they just want people to use their code. Public Domain would make it easier for people to do so. License Change - IANAL, but I believe by licensing their code, even with an extremely nonrestrictive license, this means they can change the license on a later revision? This reason is not good for explaining most BSD/MIT licensed code which seems to have no intent of ever becoming more restrictive. AS IS - All licenses seem to have the SCREAMING CAPS declaration saying that the software is 'as is' and that the author offers no implied or express warranty. IANAL, but isn't this implied in public domain? Am I missing some compelling reason? The authors I have talked to about this basically said something along the lines of "BSD/MIT just seems like what you do, no one does public domain". Is this groupthink in action, or is there a compelling anti-public domain argument? Thanks EDIT: I am specifically asking about Public Domain vs BSD/MIT/OtherEquallyUnrestrictiveLicense. Not GPL. Please understand what these licenses allow, and this includes: Selling the work, changing the work and not 'giving the changes back', and incorporating the work in a differently (such as commercially) licensed work. Thank You to everyone who has replied who understands what BSD/MIT means.

  Read the article

• InstallShield 2010 with license - no license for automatic build system (CI) as Windows service

  - by Gilad

  I really need help here. We are using CI build-process (Hudson) as an automated build system using Msbuild. The CI run in Apache Tomcat 6 that run under the credentials of a domain user (not a local Windows user ). Every time the CI try to build an InstallShield project (using isproj files) we get a license error message: " C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : -7159: The product license has expired or has not yet been initialized. You must launch the IDE to configure the product license in order to proceed. C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : Exception Caught". If I log in to the same machine with the same domain user credentials and build the InstallShield project there is a license and it is working well. Adding the user to the local Users group doesn't help (no license). Adding the user to the local Administrators group helps and it is working. We do not want the user to be in the local Administrators group - for various reasons. What do I need to do to make it work? Do I need to add permissions to the use? Help will be highly appreciated. Gilad

  Read the article

• OpenSource License Validation [closed]

  - by Macmade

  I'm basically looking for some kind of FLOSS/OpenSource license validation service. I have special needs for some projects I'd like to open-source. I know there's actually tons of different FLOSS/OpenSource licenses, each one suitable for some specific purpose, and that creating a «new» one is not something recommended, usually. Anyway, even if I'm not an expert in the legal domain, I've got some experience with FLOSS/OpenSource, at a legal level, and it seems there's just no license covering my needs. I actually wrote the license terms I'd like to use, and contacted the FSF, asking them to review that license, as it seems (at least that's written on their website) they can do such review work. No answer. I tried repetitively, but no luck. So I'm currently looking for an alternate legal expertise about that specific license. I don't mind paying such a service, as long as I can be sure the license can be recognised as a FLOSS/OpenSource license. About the license, it's basically a mix of a BSD (third-clause) with a BOOST software license. The difference is about redistribution. Source code redistribution shall retain the copyright novices. The same applies for binary redistribution (like BSD), unless it's distributed as a library (more like BOOST). I hope this question is OK for programmers.stackexchange. I'm usually more active on StackOverflow, but it just seems the right place for such a question. So thank you for your time and enlightened advices. : )

  Read the article

• License compatibility question

  - by Ivaylo Slavov

  I have a question regarding software licenses. I plan to put a license to a framework that I have written. My intention is that the license should be open, in order to maintain a community. Also I want to control when a new version is released and which changes will be included. The license should allow the framework to be used with commercial products, therefore respecting their own license. I have done some quick research and I decided to double license my work under the Apache License 2.0 (ASL) and Eclipse Public License (EPL). My point is that the EPL will provide me the ability to control the release cycle as well as the contributions to the project and the Apache license will take care for any patents a 3rd party might want to use in a derived work. Also both are open licenses. My question is related to the GLP and LGPL licenses. If I have the above licenses to my framework, will it be possible and legal, for someone to create a derived work of my framework, that is also a derived work of, or links a library that is under the LGPL license? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To be clear I will explain how I expect things to work. The framework will define some common API for certain functionalities as well as a Wrapper class that will invoke an implementation of that API. The Wrapper will be part of the framework, but it will internally call the actual implementation. This implementation should be in a separate library, and such libraries I would like to be developed and maintained by community. Surely the community will have to access the framework but I want to limit changes to the framework by the community but I want to provide freedom for any API implementation (a derived work of the framework). The framework will enable flexible configuration mechanisms that will tell which implementation of an API will be used.

  Read the article

• Developer friendly open-source license?

  - by Francisco Garcia

  As a software engineer/programmer myself, I love the possibility to download the code and learn from it. However building software is what brings food to my table. I have doubts regarding the type of license I should use for my own personal projects or when picking up one project to learn from. There are already many questions about licenses on Stackoverflow, but I would like to make this one much more specific. If your main profession and way of living is building software, which type of license do you find more useful for you? And I mean, the license that can benefit you most as a professional because it gives you more freedom to reuse the experience you gain. GPL is a great license to build communities because it forces you to give back your work. However I like BSD licenses because of their extra freedom. I know that if the code I am exploring is BSD licensed, I might be able to expand not only my skills, but also my programmer toolbox. Whenever I am working for a company, I might recall that something similar was done in another project and I will be able to copy or imitate certain part of the code. I know that there are religious wars regarding GPL vs BSD and it is not my intention to start one. Probably many companies already take snipsets from GPL projects anyway. I just want to insist in the factor of professional enrichment. I do not intend to discriminate any license. I said I prefer BSD licenses but I also use Linux because the user base is bigger and also the market demand.

  Read the article

• Farseer Physics Engine and the Ms-PL License

  - by Stephen Tierney

  Am I able to produce code for a game which uses the Farseer engine and release my code under an open source license other than the Ms-PL? My concern is with the following section from the license: 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. If I do not include Farseer in my source code distribution does this give me an exemption from this clause as I am not distributing the software? My code merely uses its functions. No where in the license does it force you to provide source code for derivative works or linking works, it simply gives you the option of "if you distribute".

  Read the article

• Adding License to VMware Server 2 via scripting command?

  - by andyt25

  Hi all, I recently discovered the vimsvc/license command in vmware-vim-cmd and was trying to use that to automatically add my license key to a fresh vmware installation. vmware-vim-cmd -H hostip -O portnumber vimsvc/license --source file '/path/to/plaintext-file-that-contains-my-license-key.txt' plaintext-file-that-contains-my-license-key.txt contains my key in XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX format, I've also tried it with an extra carriage return at the end. Adding the key that way doesn't work, however. I always get the following error message: [200] Reading local file: /path/to/plaintext-file-that-contains-my-license-key.txt [200] Size of file is 24 bytes. returned were XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX [200] Changing license source to: file:/path/to/plaintext-file-that-contains-my-license-key.txt [500] Caught unexpected exception Type: N5Vmomi5Fault17NotEnoughLicenses9ExceptionE what() =vmodl.fault.NotEnoughLicenses GetMsg() = There are not enough licenses installed to perform the operation. It's kinda silly to require a license to be able to add a license, don't you think? ;-) So how do I go about and add the key via script? I would like to avoid any interaction as I have the rest of the install fully scripted and non-interactive. Kind Regards, Stefan

  Read the article

• BSD-Socket Options expalantion needded

  - by khera-satinder

  I want detailed explanations for bsd-socket options so that I can use them in the right manner. Can anybody please provide me some document or link from where I can refer? Thanks, Satinder Singh [email protected]

  Read the article

• BSD-Socket Options explanation needded

  - by khera-satinder

  I want detailed explanations for bsd-socket options so that I can use them in the right manner. Can anybody please provide me some document or link from where I can refer? Thanks, Satinder Singh [email protected]

  Read the article

• Rewriting GPL code to change license

  - by I_like_traffic_lights

  I have found a GPL library (no dual license), which does exactly what I need. Unfortunately, the GPL license on the library is incompatible with the license of a different library I use. I have therefore decided to rewrite the GPL library, so the license can be changed. My question is: How extensive do the changes need to be to the library in order to be able to change the license? In other words, what is the cheapest way to do this?

  Read the article

• individual license to volume license

  - by Carl

  Hello, my company has about 100 computer each using individual licenses for MS Office and Windows. We are looking to upgrade about 50 computers. We, in the past, have used Dell as our main supplier of PCs and would like to continue with them. What would be the best route for us in upgrading these 50 computers. We were thinking volume licensing for quicker setup and configuration. Thanks, Carl

  Read the article

• Adobe Volume License for Indesign Digital Download Location?

  - by elistp

  We recently purchased a volume license for Adobe Indesign from Dell. We received an e-mail for the order that contains the serial #. However, there is no information on how to obtain Adobe Indesign from the Adobe licensing portal. This is our first time dealing with Adobe volume licensing so I'm a bit lost as to what we're suppose to do. I've googled around a little and found an Adobe License Portal but I do not have access to it. Does anyone with experience concerning Adobe volume licensing have any idea what we're suppose to do to get a download of our purchase?

  Read the article

• How to Uninstall License key

  - by balexandre

  I have bought and updated my Win 7 Pro to Windows 8 Professional and it's great ... all in all, I wanna keep using Windows 8, but something went wrong with Visual Studio 2012 Professional installation and there is no way I can install the target version for .NET 4.0 and I really need this to comply with old projects without affecting all the other developers. I do have an official license key bought when installing Windows 8, my question is, now that I need to format Install Win 7 Pro Upgrade to Win 8 Pro how do I make sure my next activation is successfully? In other words, how can I, not change, but remove my license so I can re-use it again when everything is fresh and updated

  Read the article

• Recovering a Windows XP License key

  - by Fortyrunner

  I threw out a Windows XP machine a while ago (the motherboard failed). I kept the hard drive and the XP installation media. Problem is the license key was on a sticker on the machine - doh! The original manufacturer has gone bust (Evesham) and I suspect that Microsoft will be of little help. Is there any easy way to get the license key off the hard disk? Can I just find the file with the registry data in it and get the key using a hex editor? I really need a spare XP key for use in a Windows VM.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Expression Studio 4 Ultimate license problem.

  - by Sung Meister

  I have installed a volume licensed version of Expression Studio 4 Ultimate. When I contacted support, I was told that a product key is not required for volume license version. But after I installing it, I get folowing error message: A licensing error has occurred. Restart your Expression program and try again. If you continue to receive this error message, reinstall your Expression program to make sure that the license installs correctly. As a side note, I used to have full version of Blend 3 and Blend 4 Beta installed side by side.

  Read the article

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