Search Results

Search found 1038 results on 42 pages for 'licensing'.

Page 7/42 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How to efficiently protect part of an application with a license

    - by Patrick
    I am working on an application that has many functional parts. When a customer buys the application, he buys the standard functionality, but he can also buy some additional elements of the application for an additional price. All of the elements are part of the same application executable. A license key is used to indicate which of the elements should be accessible in the application. Some of the elements can be easily disabled if the user didn't pay for it. These are typically the modules that you can access via the application's menu. However, some elements give more problems: What if a part of the data model is related to an optional part? Do I build up these data structures in my application so the rest of my application can just assume they're always there? Or do I don't build them, and add checks in the rest of may application? What if some optional part is still useful to perform some internal tasks, but I don't want to expose it to the user externally? What if the marketing responsible wants to make a standard part now an optional part? In all of my application I assume that that part is present, but if it becomes optional, I should add checks on it everywhere in the application. I have some ideas on how to solve some of the problems (e.g. interfaces with dual implementations: one working implementation, and one that is activated if the optional part is not activated). Do you know of any patterns that can be used to solve this kind of problem? Or do you have any suggestions on how to handle this licensing problem? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • License validation and calling home

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

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Sharing on Github

    - by Alan
    Over the past couple weeks I have gotten a lot of help from StackOverflow users on a project, and rather than keep the finished product to myself I wanted to share it unencumbered by licenses, but don't want there to be so much legwork during installation that users shy away from trying it. I am about to post it to Github and choosing public domain licensing. I would like to to be super simple for users to make use of and just FTP it up and go. That being said, do I need to make sure I remove things like the JQuery file, and other GPL / MIT licensed dependencies that I didn't write but that my code depends on? I haven't removed any copyright notices from the other code and all of it open source, it would just be nice if users could download everything at once while of course not trying to represent that I am the license holder of the dependencies. Inside my files are also some snippets, do those have to be externalized with installation instructions or can it be posted as is? Here is an example, my nav.php file is 115 lines long and I have these at the top: <script type="text/javascript" src="./js/ddaccordion.js"> /*********************************************** * Accordion Content script- (c) Dynamic Drive DHTML code library (www.dynamicdrive.com) * Visit http://www.dynamicDrive.com for hundreds of DHTML scripts * This notice must stay intact for legal use ***********************************************/ </script> <link href="css/admin.css" rel="stylesheet"> <script type="text/javascript"> ddaccordion.init({ headerclass: "submenuheader", //Shared CSS class name of headers group contentclass: "submenu", //Shared CSS class name of contents group revealtype: "click", //Reveal content when user clicks or onmouseover the header? Valid value: "click", "clickgo", or "mouseover" mouseoverdelay: 200, //if revealtype="mouseover", set delay in milliseconds before header expands onMouseover collapseprev: false, //Collapse previous content (so only one open at any time)? true/false defaultexpanded: [], //index of content(s) open by default [index1, index2, etc] [] denotes no content onemustopen: false, //Specify whether at least one header should be open always (so never all headers closed) animatedefault: false, //Should contents open by default be animated into view? persiststate: true, //persist state of opened contents within browser session? toggleclass: ["", ""], //Two CSS classes to be applied to the header when it's collapsed and expanded, respectively ["class1", "class2"] togglehtml: ["suffix", "<img src='./images/plus.gif' class='statusicon' />", "<img src='./images/minus.gif' class='statusicon' />"], //Additional HTML added to the header when it's collapsed and expanded, respectively ["position", "html1", "html2"] (see docs) animatespeed: "fast", //speed of animation: integer in milliseconds (ie: 200), or keywords "fast", "normal", or "slow" oninit:function(headers, expandedindices){ //custom code to run when headers have initalized //do nothing }, onopenclose:function(header, index, state, isuseractivated){ //custom code to run whenever a header is opened or closed //do nothing } }) </script>

    Read the article

  • MAPS windows 2008 r2 ent vs normal windows 2008 r2 ent edition [closed]

    - by KevinOelen
    Possible Duplicate: Can you help me with my software licensing question? Microsoft action pack subscription(MAPS) offers that many internal use of softwares, especially windows server 2008 R2 Ent 1 license with 10 CALs. Total cost is 329$ But when I looking for microsoft licensing and pricing guide, windows server 2008 r2 ent edition costs 3919$ with 25 cal. Do we really need to buy windows enterprise edition?

    Read the article

  • Suppressing iTunes Licensing Agreement for Roaming Profiles

    - by Alex Zmaczynski
    This application is stored locally from our company image we are testing, but our users are using roaming profiles and each time they log in to a different computer or the main computer they work on iTunes keeps asking them to accept the licensing agreement. Is there anyway to keep this agreement from coming up since they are not storing this information in their profile or on the computer locally? All the computers are on Windows 7 and we run a Server 2008 R2 Domain.

    Read the article

  • Licensing WPF application

    - by Macros
    Does anyone have any guidance on the best way to manage licensing for a WPF application? I would like to have different levels of licensing (Free, Trial and Professional). The app itself will probably be distributed with a WiX installer (if that makes any difference)

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 upgrade licensing

    - by bwerks
    I'm having trouble wading through Microsoft's marketing information. Does anyone know if Windows 7 x86 to Windows 7 x64 is a valid upgrade path? I know you can't actually use the built-in "upgrade" installation path; this is more of a licensing question. Although that may have answered my own question: is this idea even possible? Or do "upgrade" versions of Windows function only when executed from inside the OS, and not when doing fresh installs? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can I use `UnlockCommercialFeatures` for developing Java applications without a commercial license?

    - by nondescript1
    As of Java 7 Update 40, Oracle is now including Java Mission Control in the JDK. Being always interested in a new profiling tool, I decided to check it out. However, trying to start Flight Recorder against a process, I get the following error, Now I'm getting cold feet about adding the JVM option -XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures. I would only use this for profiling in development and not in production. From the article linked above, JMC is available under the Oracle Binary Code License for Java. The license allows you to use JMC for free during development and testing, though a different (paid for) licence is required for production use. I'm still leery about this. From Java SE Products, Flight Recorder certainly is a commercial feature; however, I find it very confusing that it's now included in the standard JDK release. Anyone else have a read on this? Clearly nothing here is legally binding and your legal department should be consulted. Reference: Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for the Java SE Platform Products and JavaFX

    Read the article

  • USB software protection dongle for Java with an SDK which is cross-platform “for real”. Does it exist?

    - by Unai Vivi
    What I'd like to ask is if anybody knows about an hardware USB-dongle for software protection which offers a very complete out-of-the-box API support for cross-platform Java deployments. Its SDK should provide a jar (only one, not one different library per OS & bitness) ready to be added to one's project as a library. The jar should contain all the native stuff for the various OSes and bitnesses From the application's point of view, one should continue to write (api calls) once and run everywhere, without having to care where the end-user will run the software The provided jar should itself deal with loading the appropriate native library Does such a thing exist? With what I've tried so far, you have different APIs and compiled libraries for win32, linux32, win64, linux64, etc (or you even have to compile stuff yourself on the target machine), but hey, we're doing Java here, we don't know (and don't care) where the program will run! And we can't expect the end-user to be a software engineer, tweak (and break!) its linux server, link libraries, mess with gcc, litter the filesystem, etc... In general, Java support (in a transparent cross-platform fashion) is quite bad with the dongle SDKs I've evaluated so far (e.g. KeyLok and SecuTech's UniKey). I even purchased (no free evaluation kit available) SecureMetric SDKs&dongles (they should've been "soooo" straighforward to integrate -- according to marketing material :\ ) and they were the worst ever: SecureDongle X has no 64bit support and SecureDongle SD is not cross-platform at all. So, has anyone out there been through this and found the ultimate Java security usb dongle for cross-platform deployments? Note: software is low-volume, high-value; application is off-line (intranet with no internet access), so no online-activation alternatives and the like. -- EDIT Tried out HASP dongles (used to be called "Aladdin"), and added them to the no-no list: here, too, there is no out-of-the-box (out-of-the-jar) support: e.g. end-linux-user has to manually put the .so library (the specific file for the appropriate bitness) in the right place on his filesystem, and export an env. variable accordingly. -- EDIT 2 I really don't understand all the negativity and all the downvoting: is this a taboo topic? Is it so hard to understand that a freelance developer has to put food on the table everyday to feed its family and pay the bills at the end of the month? Please don't talk about "adding value" as a supplier, because that'd be off-topic. Furthermore I'm not in direct contact with end-customers, but there's an intermediate reselling entity: it's this entity I want to prevent selling copies of the software without sharing the revenue. -- EDIT 3 I'd like to emphasize the fact that the question is looking for a technical answer, not one about opinions concerning business models, philosophical lucubrations on the concept of value, resellers' reliability, etc. I cannot change resellers, because this isn't a "general purpose" kind of sw, but a very vertical one and (for some reasons it's not worth explaining here) I must go through them. I just need to prevent the "we sold 2 copies, here's your share [bwahaha we sold 10]" scenario.

    Read the article

  • The Apache License, v2.0: Copyright License vs Patent License

    - by user278064
    The Apache License, v2.0 [..] 2. Grant of Copyright License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. [..] 3. Grant of Patent License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including cross-claim or counterclaim in lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within theWork constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. While the meaning of the Copyright License provision is rather clear, I did not get the meaning of the Patent License provision. Which advantages does the "Grant of Patent License" provision further give to Contributors? Why are they useful? Is the "Grant of Patent License" provision useful only in case of patent litigation?

    Read the article

  • Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

    - by Chris Barry
    There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (JavaScript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then reimplemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then reimplementing it separately from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well? EDIT------ Really glad to see this topic create a good conversation. To give a bit more backing to the project, the code involved does some kind of audio analysis. I believe it is non-trivial to learn or implement, although I was prepared to embark on this task (I'm at the level where I can implement an FFT algorithm, and this was going to go beyond that.) It is a fairly low LOC script, so I didn't think it would be too hard to do a straight port. I really like the idea of rereleasing my port as well as using it in the application. I don't see any problem with that, and it would be a great way to give something back to the community. I was going to add a line about not wanting to discuss the moral issues, but I'm quite glad I didn't as it seems to have fired the debate a bit. I still feel a bit odd about using open source code to learn from. Does this mean that anything one learns from an open source project is not allowed to be used in a closed source project? And how long after or different does an implementation have to be to not be considered violation of the licence? Murky! EDIT 2 -------- Follow up question

    Read the article

  • How can Google publish Dalvik as Java-language compatible since Java is a trademark?

    - by Bruno Chagas
    According to this thread Java and JVM license You can write a compiler that implements the Java Language Specification or write a JVM that implements the Java Virtual Machine specification, but when you officially want to call it "Java", you have to prove it is compatible by passing the tests of the TCK (technology compatibility kit) and pay for a license from Oracle. So, how can Google (or any other java implementation for that matter) claims that Dalvik is a Java virtual machine?

    Read the article

  • Does it matter to you that a software is "available source" but not "open source"

    - by ccpod
    You probably know the list of open source licenses officially approved by the OSI. Most notably I guess would be the GPL, MIT, [insert your favorite license here]. I recently ran into a project which although was open source (the creator made all source code available), was not officially open source under one of those official licenses. It released the source, but made no promise to release the source in the future. It allowed modification suggestions, but made no promises to accept patches and disallowed external distribution of externally-patched versions. It allowed the use of the software in commercial or paid projects, but disallowed the sale of the software itself. I suppose it could be called "available source" not open source as we like to think of it. I can see why the management team of a company wouldn't want to do business with this software. They can't fork it, they can't sell it, they can't create their own version of the software and distribute it or sell it. But would it matter to you as part of a software engineering team who's just using this software? I can still get my work done with it, I can use it in a project for which I'm paid (but I can't sell the software itself, which I'm not in the business of doing anyway), and I can make changes to the code to make it behave differently for my needs (but I can't make those modifications public), and if I do want those modifications officially made available to others, the approval is up to the project itself and they choose whether to incorporate them in an official release or not. So we know that a company that wants to base its business on this "available source" software can't do that, but as someone from the software engineering team, would those differences matter to you or do they seem less relevant? Curious what others think of this.

    Read the article

  • Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

    - by optician
    There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (javascript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then re implemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then re-implementing it separate from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well?

    Read the article

  • Publish a software with copyright and license

    - by King Chan
    I just read some artical about publishing software and I am personally developing some random metero application at the moment. The artical were suggesting the software should have a publisher website. But what I have to put down in the publisher website to keep my copyright? Is it simply really just "Designed/Developed @ 2012 By King Chan" at the bottom of the site and software and is enough? Or do I have to even write a long paragraph of license/agreement said the user who download/use the software cannot copy the icon/functionality etc? (The Apple and Samsung things get me worry about CopyRight now....)

    Read the article

  • Choice of open source license for some components, closed source for others

    - by Peter Serwylo
    G'day, I am working on a set of multiplayer games, where different games play against each other (e.g. you play a Tetris clone, I play an Asteroids clone, but we are both competing against each other). All the games would be based on the same underlying framework written specifically for this project. I am struggling to comprehend how I would license this so that: The underlying framework is open source, so other people can create new games based on it. Some games built on the framework are open source Other games are closed source The goal is to have two bundles on something like the Android market: One free and open source package which has a collection of games Another "premium" (although I dislike that word) paid package which has a different collection of games. Usually I am fond of permissive licenses such as MIT/BSD, however I would prefer something more in the vein of the GPL for this. This is because for software such as the snes-9x SNES emulator, which is a great piece of software, there is a ton of poor quality versions being sold, whereas it would be preferable if there was just one authoritative version which was always kept up to date, and distributed for free. If the underlying framework was GPL'd, would I be able to build closed source games on top of it? Thanks for your input.

    Read the article

  • Dilemma for growing a project: Open source volunteer developers VS closed source paid / revshare developers? [closed]

    - by giorgio79
    I am trying to grow my project, and I am vaccillating between some examples. Some options seem to be: 1. open sourcing the project to draw volunteer developers. Pros This would mean anyone can try and make some money off the code that would motivate them to contribute back and grow the project. Cons Existing bigger could easily copy and paste my work so far. They can also replicate without having access to the code, but that would take more time. I also thought of using AGPL license, but again, code can still be copied without redistribution. After all, enforcing a license costs a lot of money, and I cannot just say to a possible copycat that it seems you copied my code, show me what you got. 2. Keep the project closed source, but create some kind of a developer program where they get revshare Pros I keep the main rights for the project, but still generate interest by creating a developer program. Noone can copy code easily, just with some considerable effort, but make contributions easy as a breeze. I am also seeing many companies just open source a part of their projects, like Acquia does not open source its multisite setup, or github does not open source some of its core business. Cons Less attention from open source committed devs. Conclusion So option 2 seems the most secure, but would love some feedback.

    Read the article

  • 'Unblock' / 'Yellow Out' game questions

    - by pimvdb
    I would very much like to build a game that is known as 'Unblock' or 'Yellow Out'. It is a puzzle game in which the task is to move a car out of a parking space by moving other cars in certain directions. These are links where the game can be played: Yellow Out Unblock My questions concerning this game are: Is this game actually licensed? I see it's available under two names (perhaps even more). Does this mean the game idea can be used freely? Is there an article about it? I have not been able to find it on Wikipedia. I would like to gather some information about the game so as to understand more details of it. Is there some database with puzzles available? I can just check the puzzles of existing games, but that's a pain because I have to finish a level to get on to the following one. I was wondering whether there is a general list of puzzles somewhere. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL or AGPL Web Application Framework/CMS?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

    Read the article

  • What are the legal risks if any of using a GPL'ed Web Application Framework/CMS?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Tried to ask this on SO but was referred here... Am I correct in saying that using a GPL'ed web application framework such as Composite C1 would NOT obligate a company to share the source code we write against said framework? That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? Does this also apply to Javascript frameworks like KendoUI? The GPL would require any changes that we make to the framework be made available to others if we were to offer it for download. In other words, merely loading a web sites content into my browser is not "conveying" or "distributing" that software. I have been arguing that we should avoid GPL web frameworks and now after researching I am pretty sure I am wrong but wanted to get other opinions? Seth

    Read the article

  • Can I use CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree mapping) together with a GPLv3-licensed library?

    - by Erik Sjölund
    Is it possible to write an open source project that uses generated code from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) and then link it to a third-party library that is licensed under the GPL version 3? Some background information: CodeSynthesis XSD is licensed under the GPL version 2 but with an extra FLOSS exception (http://www.codesynthesis.com/projects/xsd/FLOSSE). C++ source code generated from CodeSynthesis XSD (C++/Tree) needs to be linked against Xerces (http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/) that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Update I posted a similar question on the xsd-users mailing list two years ago but I didn't fully understand the answers. In that email thread, I wrote: I think it is the GPL version 3 software that doesn't allow itself be linked to software that can't be "relicensed" to GPL version 3 ( for instance GPL version 2 software ). That would also include XSD as the FLOSS exception doesn't give permission to "relicense" XSD to GPL version 3.

    Read the article

  • MPL 1.1 and APL 2.0 License compatibility

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

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2013 - Express for Web vs Professional [duplicate]

    - by TimS
    This question already has an answer here: Visual Studio 2012 - Express vs Professional 2 answers What are the main differences and limitations between Visual Studio 2013 Express and Visual Studio 2013 Professional? I'm specifically interested in information related to the Web edition. I need to be able to develop ASP.Net applications, Windows Services and console applications - not Desktop or Phone apps. Microsoft seems to hide this information well and I can only seem to find information relating to 2012 products and earlier.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >