Search Results

Search found 2438 results on 98 pages for 'gpl license'.

Page 4/98 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Do I need to contact a lawyer to report a GPL violation in software distributed on Apple's App Store?

    - by Rinzwind
    Some company is selling software through Apple's App Store which uses portions of code that I released publicly under the GPL. The company is violating the licensing terms in two ways, by (1) not preserving my copyright statement, and not releasing their code under the GPL license and (2) by distributing my GPL-licensed code through Apple's App Store. (The Free Software Foundation has made clear that the terms of the GPL and those of the App Store are incompatible.) I want to report this to Apple, and ask that they take appropriate action. I have tried mailing them to ask for more information about the reporting process, and have received the automated reply quoted below. The last point in the list of things one needs to provide, the “a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury,” sounds as if they mean some kind of specific legal document. I'm not sure. Does this mean I need to contact a lawyer just to file the report? I'd like to avoid going through that hassle if at all possible. (Besides an answer to this specific question, I'd welcome comments and experience reports from anyone who has already had to deal with a GPL violation on Apple's App Store.) Thank you for contacting Apple's Copyright Agent. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes infringement on Apple’s Web site, please provide the following information: an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site; your address, telephone number, and email address; a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf. For further information, please review Apple's Legal Information & Notices/Claims of Copyright Infringement at: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/claimsofcopyright.html To expedite the processing of your claim regarding any alleged intellectual property issues related to iTunes (music/music videos, podcasts, TV, Movies), please send a copy of your notice to [email protected] For claims concerning a software application, please send a copy of your notice to [email protected]. Due to the high volume of e-mails we receive, this may be the only reply you receive from [email protected]. Please be assured, however, that Apple's Copyright Agent and/or the iTunes Legal Team will promptly investigate and take appropriate action concerning your report.

    Read the article

  • Rewriting code under BSD license

    - by Frank
    I am currently studding OpengGL with OpenGL Supebible 5th edition. I've found interested for me some C++ code that is distributed with the book (see also on google code). That code is under New BSD License. I am writing my software on C# with SharpGL wrapper and I'd like to know following things: Can I rewrite that C++ to C#? edid: I'am interesting in using such things like GLBatch, GLShaderManager and some other thing from GLTools. Problem is that library is on C++, but I use C#. How do I have to mark my source code if I put it somewhere like to my github account? What disclaimer should be? Original disclaimer looks like: /* GLShaderManager.h Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Neither the name of Richard S. Wright Jr. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 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. */ Edit: Should my copyright looks like after rewriting something like that? Copyright (c) 2014, My Name Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. All rights reserved. Redistribution...................

    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

  • Who will prosecute if GPL code is misused

    - by udpsunil
    I have seen using of GPL code in proprietary software which is sold to customers. It seems so wrong that they are not releasing under GPL and not contributing to the Community Is there any authority to check the misuse of GPL? How misuse of GPL can be reported?

    Read the article

  • Does distributing non-GPLd assets with a GPL application violate the license?

    - by Richard Szalay
    This is somewhat related to my other question, but is actually different. I would like to license a Windows Phone application under the GPL. All other Windows Phone Marketplace issues aside (I'll ask those on the forums), I'd like to include icons that ship with the SDK in my application. While this is common practice (documentation points to the icons' location), I'm not sure if I'd be forcing GPL on the icons (a move expressly forbidden by the Application Provider Agreement). How is this usually handled in GPL or am I simply out of luck?

    Read the article

  • Do I have to release the code of a MIT licensed software running a GPL library?

    - by Belohlavek
    Lets say I'm using Node-Webkit, an MIT licensed app runtime. Now, let's say I decide to include a Javascript library which is GPL licensed: while I do not modify the downloaded JS file, I do write my own code making use of the library's functions. I plan to sell the final obfuscated executable and I'm wondering: what's the final license of the complete software? Do I only have to release the GPL library or does the GPL license apply for all the code I wrote? What happens to Node-Webkit's MIT license?

    Read the article

  • GPL exception that allows linking to free licenses only?

    - by fNek
    There is the GPL license and the linking exception which allows closed-source programs to use the program as a library. There is also the slightly more restrictive LGPL (more restrictive than GPL with exception since it requires that the user can change the library in the resulting project, etc.). And there is the Cygwin exception that allows linking to open source programs. I see clear advantages: Open-Source programs may use the library. People may use these programs for closed-source programs, but then they lose the permission to use the (GPL) library. However, there are two things I don't like about the Cygwin exception: - Its legal status is disputed - I keep hearing that it is basically worthless - It requires certification by the OSI, I would rather have certification by FSF Is there an exception to the GNU General Public License that meets my requirements?

    Read the article

  • Question about the no-endorsment clause on the BSD license

    - by Earlz
    I'm developing a non-free library and I want to use Bcrypt.Net in it. The clause in question: Neither the name of BCrypt.Net nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. To what extent does this mean I can't use the name of Bcrypt.Net? For instance, could I say "the only ASP.Net authentication library capable of using Bcrypt" or can I even include "supports Bcrypt for password hashing" in promotional materials? Note: I do not actually modify any of Bcrypt.Net's code

    Read the article

  • Author has inserted copyright into code with gnu public license notice - implications?

    - by Nicholas Pickering
    I've found a project on Github that I'm interested in contributing to which claims to be open source and has a GPL license included with it. But the original author has added a copyright notification to each source file. I'm not sure why but I don't feel right contributing to a project that's always going to have someone else's name on it. It really breaks the community-created feel, and makes me uneasy about what the author might choose to do with the project next. What are the implications of copyrighting open source GPL code as so? What power does this give the original author over a contributor? # Copyright (C) 2012, 2013 __AUTHORNAME__ # This file is part of __PROJECTNAME__. # # __PROJECTNAME__ is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by # the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or # (at your option) any later version. # # __PROJECTNAME__ 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 # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

    Read the article

  • How does one escape the GPL?

    - by tehtros
    DISCLAIMER I don't pretend to know anything about licensing. In fact, everything I say below may be completely false! Backstory: Recently, I've been looking for a decent game engine, and I think I've found one that I really like, Cafu Engine. However, they have a dual licensing plan, where everything you make with the engine is forced under GPL, unless you pay for a commercial license. I'm not saying that it's a bad engine, they even say that they are very relaxed about the licensing fees. However, the fact that it even involves the GPL scares me. So my question is basicly, how does one escape the GPL. Here's an example: The id Tech engine, also known as the Quake engine, or the Doom engine, was the base for the popular Source engine. However, the id Tech engine has been released under the GPL, and the Source engine is proprietary. Did Valve get a different license? Or did they do something to escape the GPL? Is there a way to escape the GPL? Or, if you use GPL'd source code as a base for another project, are you forced to use the GPL, and make your source code available to the world. Could some random person take the id Tech engine, modify it past the point of recognition, then use it as a proprietary engine for commercial products? Or are they required to make it open source. One last thing, I generally have no problem what-so-ever with open source. However I feel that open source has it's place, but that is not in the bushiness world.

    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

  • 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

  • Is there an open source license that allows any use, except within a GPL/copyleft project? [on hold]

    - by Marcos Scriven
    I would like to open source some code with a permissive license (say MIT/BSD) I would be happy for it to be used both commercially and in any open source project that is not copyleft (GPL being the main one obviously). I looked at the list of non-GPL compatible licenses here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses But none seemed to be quite what I wanted. Is there such a license already? If not, would it even be possible to do this? EDIT: I have been asked to edit this question to clarify. I'm not sure how it's unclear, as that wasn't stated. What I would like to know is simply the answer to the topic - can anyone point to a standard licence that is permissive as possible, while restricting use in copyleft licence. I'm not clear why the question would be suspended by the same person that edited spelling differences (apparently British English is a 'mistake') in the question earlier, and by another that had answered licencing questions in other posts.

    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

  • MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License

    - by ryanve
    My understanding is that: MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects. BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects. The MIT and the BSD 2-clause licenses are essentially identical. BSD 3-clause = BSD 2-clause + the "no endorsement" clause Issuing a dual license allows users to choose from those licenses—not be bound to both. If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of using a dual MIT/BSD license? Even if the BSD refers to the 3-clause version, then can't a user legally choose to only abide by the MIT license? It seems that if you really want the "no endorsement" clause to apply then you have to license it as just BSD (not dual). If you don't care about the "no endorsement" clause, then MIT alone is sufficient and MIT/BSD is redundant. Similarly, since the MIT and BSD licenses are both "GPL-compatible" and can be redistributed in GPL-licensed projects, then dual licensing MIT/GPL also seems redundant.

    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

  • Use of Icons from a GPL'd program

    - by clartaq
    There is a GPL'd program that has some nice icons I would like to use in a project of my own. I would like to release my project under a more liberal license like Apache or BSD. After reading the GPL V3 license (a few times), I can't figure out how it applies to resources like icons. Can I use them at all? If so, must I release my new project under GPL instead of some other license? Of course, I plan to contact the original author and ask them what they had in mind and honor that intent. But what are the legal requirements for use of graphical resources from GPL'd software?

    Read the article

  • Can GPL interface with MIT library

    - by dmontain
    I inherited a GPL project which I'm trying to improve. I know of an MIT library that could really help me improve this project. I know its developer personally and I read his blog, and he's made it clear on several occasions that he likes MIT and Apache licenses. My questions: Do I have to tell him that I'm using his library in a GPL project? Is it ok for my GPL project to interface with his MIT library?

    Read the article

  • GPL/LGPL-licensed images + iPhone development

    - by cubic1271
    Since the majority of legal links / READMEs I've found when browsing icon sets refer me to the general GPL / LGPL (as opposed to a specialized version of some kind) when I'm looking at license restrictions, I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out what would constitute source code, linking, etc. when it comes to images and / or icons. One specific example: under section 5 of the GPL, modifications must carry notices in the source code. . . how do I do that with an image? I guess I could try to find a few unused bits and encode my modifications in there (steganography, anyone?), but somehow that doesn't seem like what the license is shooting for. There are also other sections in there where I have no idea how to begin to comply with. Thus, I'm really confused. What exactly are the implications of using GPL and / or LGPL licensed images in something that isn't itself GPL'd? Specifically, I'd like to know what using GPL icons in an iPhone application might mean from a legal point of view. It feels like I'm missing something obvious here; any enlightenment / references would be appreciated!

    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

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