Search Results

Search found 2471 results on 99 pages for 'license agreement'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/99 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Is my Windows 7 x86 license key valid for a x64 installation of Windows?

    - by Kragen
    I've just got a new laptop with Windows 7 x86 Home Premium installed, however I ideally I'd like to be running a 64-bit operating system: Is my Windows license key "generic" (in that it entitles me to install either a x86 or x64 edition of Windows), or does this licence key specific to the x86 version of Windows? Is there any way of me installing and running Windows 7 Home Premium x64 using my x86 license key?

    Read the article

  • Can I transfer a Windows 7 license to another computer?

    - by caliban
    I was thinking of buying Windows 7 Ultimate to be installed on an old computer. In due time, I will be giving this old computer away. The question is: Will I have trouble transferring the Windows 7 Ultimate license to another PC? If yes, do I need to watch out for any issues? What exactly is Microsoft's stance/policies towards license transfers? How many times can I transfer before it becomes illegal?

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News – Win MS Office License – Last 2 days

    - by pinaldave
    Just a note for everybody who is from India and want to win FREE Office License, participate in very easy contest here. SQLAuthority News – Virtual Launch Event for Office 2010 – Contest – Win MS Office License Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Contest, Office2010

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News Win MS Office License Last 2 days

    Just a note for everybody who is from India and want to win FREE Office License, participate in very easy contest here. SQLAuthority News Virtual Launch Event for Office 2010 Contest Win MS Office License Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, [...]...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

  • The Wrong Open Source Software License

    It's ironic -- Sun took great pains to license its open source OS, OpenSolaris, and with it ZFS, under the ostensibly home-grown CDDL license. Now, with the plug pulled on Open Solaris, the future looks grim for the popular and highly regarded ZFS. Unless it can be absorbed into the Linux kernel that Sun carefully positioned it to avoid.

    Read the article

  • The Wrong Open Source Software License

    It's ironic -- Sun took great pains to license its open source OS, OpenSolaris, and with it ZFS, under the ostensibly home-grown CDDL license. Now, with the plug pulled on Open Solaris, the future looks grim for the popular and highly regarded ZFS. Unless it can be absorbed into the Linux kernel that Sun carefully positioned it to avoid.

    Read the article

  • Bypass a licence agreement when mounting a DMG on the command line

    - by Vitaly Kushner
    I'm automating my Mac installation using puppet. As a part of it I need to install several programs that come in a .dmg format. I use the following to mount them: sudo /usr/bin/hdiutil mount -plist -nobrowse -readonly -quiet -mountrandom /tmp Program.dmg The problem is that some .dmg files come with a license attached, and so script is stuck accepting the license. (There is no stdin/out when running with puppet, so I can't manually approve it to continue.) Is there a way to pre-approve or force-approve the license?

    Read the article

  • Is adding in the header the license type enough to say: "my code is licensed"?

    - by silverfox
    I read on various sites about licenses. I did just put the license type in the header file (in my case a javascript file, open-source): /* * "codeName" "version" * http://officialsite.com/ * * Copyright 2012 "codeName" * Released under the "LICENSE NAME" license * http://officialsite.com/LICENSE NAME */ javascript code ... In the same folder I leave a copy of the license. The listing of the folder looks like this: * codeName.js * LICENSE In the file LICENSE is the full text of the license my code uses. What I cannot find anywhere that says is this is enough to say my code is licensed (the case of open-source). Is something more required?

    Read the article

  • "Viral" license that only blocks legal actions of user and developer against each other

    - by Lukasz Zaroda
    I was thinking a lot about software licensing lately, because I would like to do some coding. I'm not an expert in all those licenses, so I came up with my own idea, and before I will put in on paper, I would like to make sure that I didn't reinvent a wheel, so maybe I would be able to use something that exists. Main idea behind my license is to guarantee freedom of use the software, but not "freedom to" (positive) (e.g. freedom to having source code), but "freedom from" (negative) (strictly from legal actions against you). It would be "viral" copyleft license. You would be able to without fear do everything you want with the software (and binaries e.g. reverse engineering), as long as You will include information about author and/or authors, and all derivative works will be distributed with the same license. I'm not interested in anything that would restrict a freedom of company to do something like "tivoization". I'm just trying to accomplish something that would block any legal actions of user and developer, targeted against each other, with the exception of basic attribution. Does exist something like that?

    Read the article

  • Help me choose an Open-Source license

    - by Spartan-117A
    So I've done lots of open-source work. I have released many projects, most of which have fallen under GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensing. Now I have a new project (an implementation library), and I can't find a license that meets my needs (although I believe one may exist, hence this question). This is the list of things I'm looking for in the license. Appropriate credit given for ALL usage or derivative works. No warranty expressed or implied. The library may be freely used in ANY other open-source/free-software product (regardless of license, GPL, BSD, EPL, etc). The library may be used in closed-source/commercial products ONLY WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION. GPL - Useless to me, obviously, as it completely precludes any and all closed-source use, violating requirement (4). BSD/LGPL/MIT - Won't work, because they wouldn't require closed-source developers to get my permission, violating requirement (4). If it wasn't for that, BSD (FreeBSD in particular) would look like a good choice here. EPL/MPL - Won't work either, as the code couldn't be combined with GPL-code, therefore violating requirement (3). Also I'm pretty sure they allow commercial works without asking permission, so they don't meet (4) either. Dual-licensing is an option, but in that case, what combination would hold to all four requirements? Basically, I want BSD minus the commercial use, plus an option to use in commercial/closed-source as long as the developer has my written permission. EDIT: At the moment, thinking something like multiple-licensing under GPL/LGPL plus something else for commercial?

    Read the article

  • What is the "default" software license?

    - by Tesserex
    If I release some code and binaries, but I don't include any license at all with it, what are the legal terms that apply by default (in the US, where I am). I know that I automatically have copyright without doing anything, but what restrictions are there on it? If I upload my code to github and announce it as a free download / contribute at will, then are people allowed to modify and close source my work? I haven't said that they cannot, as a GPL would, but I don't feel that it would by default be acceptable to steal my work either. So what can and cannot people do with code that is freely available, but has absolutely no licensing terms attached? By the way, I know that it would be a good idea for me to pick a license and apply it to my code soon, but I'm still curious about this. Edit Thanks! So it looks like the consensus is that it starts out very restricted, and then my actions imply any further rights. If I just put software on my website with no security, it would be an infringement to download it. If I post a link to that download on a forum, then that would implicitly give permission to use it for free, but not distribute it or its derivatives (but you can modify it for your own use). If I put it on GitHub, then it is conveyed as FOSS. Again, this is probably not codified exactly in law but may be enough to be defensible in court. It's still a good idea to post a complete license to be safe.

    Read the article

  • display internet usage agreement before users can use internet

    - by Force Flow
    I was looking for a way to display a usage agreement page in browsers that users must agree to before they are allowed to access the internet. This would be for users on public computers and public/open wifi. I'm using a sonicwall firewall which does support this feature, however, there is a rediculously low character limit which makes it impractical to use. I thought about setting the browser's homepage to a usage agreement page, but that can easily be bypassed by navigating to somewhere else. Are there any other approaches that may be worth considering? There is currently no server in place on the public network, though I can set one up if need be.

    Read the article

  • Most popular Open-Source License on github?

    - by John R
    This is a two part question: 1) What is the most popular Open-Source License used by developers on github? 2) Assuming people follow the rules - will this license (the most popular on github) assure that my name is always associated with the project - regardless of how it forks or is picked up elsewhere. The reason I ask is I have not yet used github nor released an open source project. My main incentive for releasing a particular project is to develop a name for myself and improve my resume. I have a lot of reading to do, but I suspect that knowing the most popular licensing schemes will reduce my reading and my learning curve.

    Read the article

  • A New Closed Source Viral License

    The copyleft provisions of the GPL (GNU General Public License) require that any changes or additions to a GPL licensed work must itself be licensed under terms that adhere to the GPL. Critics of these copyleft provisions have derogatively labeled the GPL as a viral license. Such criticism points out that any code that seeks to incorporate GPL licensed code must itself adhere to the terms of the GPL, thus potentially infecting other code with its restrictions. This has caused many developers of...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

  • Using source code with no license

    - by nathansizemore
    I've recently come across a publicly viewable project on Github that has no license associated with it. In this repo, there is a file with the logic and most of the code needed to work as a piece of a project I am working on. Not verbatim, but about 60% of it I'd like to use with various modifications. Once my code base is a little bit more stable, I plan to release what I've done under the WTFPL License. I've emailed the repo owner, and so far have not gotten a reply. I know I have the rights to fork the repo, but if I release a stripped down and modified version of the other project's file with mine, under the WTFPL, am I infringing on copyrights? Per Github's Terms of Service, by submitted a project on Github and making it viewable to the public, you are allowing other users to see and fork your project. Doesn't say anything about modifying, distributing, or using the fork. And at what point of modification to the original does it become owned by me?

    Read the article

  • Handling optional GPL dependencies

    - by pmr
    Assume I have a library A which is licensed under a two-clause Free BSD style license. Library A optionally depends on library B (the availability of the dependency is configured at build-time), which is licensed under the GPLv3. If I distribute both bundled together, the license will need to be GPL. But am I still able to distribute library A under the FreeBSD license? How do I indicate that the license changes, when the use of library B is enabled? Do I need to distribute two different versions or can I just have one that contains both licenses and states which applies under which conditions? Any example project I can have a look at to see it done?

    Read the article

  • GNU GPL LICENSE

    - by user577616
    I develop an android application and in my app I use a libary (jar) that I download from the internet. This jar is open-source under the "GNU General Public License v2". I tried to read the text of the license but had difficulty understanding it. My question is: can I use this libary without changing nothing in the jar in a commercial application? I will be making profit from selling my app which uses this GPL-ed .jar file. If possible, I would like to avoid converting my application to open-source.

    Read the article

  • What is the right license for tutorial source code ?

    - by devdude
    Putting sourcecode from tutorials or books online requires the author to add some kind of disclaimer or license (otherwise people would use it make lots of $$$ or break a power plant IT control system and sue you as author). But what is the right license or disclaimer statement ? Can I use BSD license with ... IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER 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,... We are talking about tutorials ! Released to teach and share knowledge. Or do I need to follow the (potentially different) licenses of the libraries I use ? Might be insignificant now but I feel we will face a license hunt in "public" sourcecode (aka OSS) in future, similar to companies/lawyers currently crawling the web for pictures with wrong copyright statement or infringing their IP (and suing someone using a picture in a personal blog,etc..).

    Read the article

  • What does it mean to double license?

    - by Adrian Panasiuk
    What does it mean to double license code? I can't just put both licenses in the source files. That would mean that I mandate users to follow the rules of both of them, but the licenses will probably be contradictory (otherwise there'd be no reason to double license). I guess this is something like in cryptographic chaining, cipher = crypt_2(crypt_1(clear)) (generally) means, that cipher is neither the output of crypt_2 on clear nor the output of crypt_1 on clear. It's the output of the composition. Likewise, in double-licensing, in reality my code has one license, it's just that this new license says please follow all of the rules of license1, or all of the rules of license2, and you are hereby granted the right to redistribute this application under this "double" license, license1 or license2, or any license under which license1 or license2 allow you to redistribute this software, in which case you shall replace the relevant licensing information in this application with that of the new license. (Does this mean that before someone may use the app under license1, he has to perform the operation of redistributing to self? How would he document the fact that he did that operation?) Am I correct. What LICENSE file and what text to put in the source files would I need if I wanted to double license on, for the sake of example, Apachev2 and GPLv3 ?

    Read the article

  • Cellbi Silverlight Controls Giveaway (5 License to give away)

    - by mbcrump
    Cellbi recently updated their new Silverlight Controls to version 4 and to support Visual Studio 2010. I played with a couple of demos on their site and had to take a look. I headed over to their website and downloaded the controls. The first thing that I noticed was all of the special text effects and animations included. I emailed them asking if I could give away their controls in my January 2011 giveaway and they said yes. They also volunteered to give away 5 total license so the changes for you to win would increase.  I am very thankful they were willing to help the Silverlight community with this giveaway. So some quick rules below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Win a FREE developer’s license of Cellbi Silverlight Controls! (5 License to give away) Random winner will be announced on February 1st, 2011! To be entered into the contest do the following things: Subscribe to my feed. Leave a comment below with a valid email account (I WILL NOT share this info with anyone.) Retweet the following : I just entered to win free #Silverlight controls from @mbcrump and @cellbi http://mcrump.me/cscfree ! Don’t change the URL because this will allow me to track the users that Tweet this page. Don’t forget to visit Cellbi because they made this possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before we get started with the Silverlight Controls, here is a couple of links to bookmark: The What's new in this release page is here. You can also check out the live demos here. Don’t worry about the Samples/Help Documentation. That is installed to your local HDD during the installation process. Begin by downloading the trial version and running the program. After everything is installed then you will see the following screen: After it is installed, you may want to take a look at your Toolbox in Visual Studio 2010. After you add the controls from the “Choose Items” in Silverlight and you will see that you now have access to all of these controls. At this point, to use the controls it’s as simple as drag/drop onto your Silverlight container. It will create the proper Namespaces for you. It’s hard to show with a static screenshot just how powerful the controls actually are so I will refer you to the demo page to learn more about them. Since all of these are animations/effects it just doesn’t work with a static screenshot. It is worth noting that the Sfx pack really focuses on the following core effects: I will show you the best route to get started building a new project with them below. The best page to start is the sample browser which you can access by going to SvFx Launcher. In my case, I want to build a new Carousel. I simple navigate to the Carousel that I want to build and hit the “Cs” code at the top. This launches Visual Studio 2010 and now I can copy/paste the XAML into my project. That is all there is to it. Hopefully this post was helpful and don’t forget to leave a comment below in order to win a set of the controls!  Subscribe to my feed

    Read the article

  • SRs @ Oracle: How do I License Thee?

    - by [email protected]
    With the release of the new Sun Ray product last week comes the advent of a different software licensing model. Where Sun had initially taken the approach of '1 desktop device = one license', we later changed things to be '1 concurrent connection to the server software = one license', and while there were ways to tell how many connections there were at a time, it wasn't the easiest thing to do.  And, when should you measure concurrency?  At your busiest time, of course... but when might that be?  9:00 Monday morning this week might yield a different result than 9:00 Monday morning last week.In the acquisition of this desktop virtualization product suite Oracle has changed things to be, in typical Oracle fashion, simpler.  There are now two choices for customers around licensing: Named User licenses and Per Device licenses.Here's how they work, and some examples:The Rules1) A Sun Ray device, and PC running the Desktop Access Client (DAC), are both considered unique devices.OR, 2) Any user running a session on either a Sun Ray or an DAC is still just one user.So, you have a choice of path to go down.Some Examples:Here are 6 use cases I can think of right now that will help you choose the Oracle server software licensing model that is right for your business:Case 1If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 100 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Two cases using the same metrics - different licensing models and therefore different results.Case 2If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 200 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - very different results.Case 3If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 50 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - but again - very different results.Based on the way your business operates you should be able to see which of the two licensing models is most advantageous to you.Got questions?  I'll try to help.(Thanks to Brad Lackey for the clarifications!)

    Read the article

  • Pursuing violators of software license/copyright

    - by Dmitry Brant
    I've recently discovered a seller on eBay who is selling CDs with my (trialware) software on it. The seller is clearly trying to pass the software off as his own; he's copied all the verbiage from my software's website, except its actual name. This seller also sells a whole bunch of other CDs with free software for which he's misrepresenting authorship. For example, this listing contains screen shots that are obviously of the free program InfraRecorder. However, the name InfraRecorder or its authors aren't mentioned anywhere. Before I splurge on official legal assistance, does the community have any recommendations or past experiences with these kinds of matters? What's the best way to proceed, and at the very least, have the eBay listings taken down? Is it possible to reclaim the earnings from the sales of these CDs (not just for me, but for the other authors of the free software that this person is selling)? I realize that GPL'd software doesn't have any restrictions on "selling" the software, but this person has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the software's authorship, which is surely a violation of the license. (My software is not GPL; it's a custom license, and it does not permit redistribution of any kind without permission)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >