Search Results

Search found 6486 results on 260 pages for 'drivers license'.

Page 84/260 | < Previous Page | 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91  | Next Page >

  • 12.04 installation started to black screen during boot today

    - by Cedric
    NOTE: Most of this question is now irrelevant. UPDATE 3 summarizes the problem as it stands. I've been running 12.04 on my Lenovo laptop for one month now (updated from 11.04), and I have not had any significant problem until today. This morning, when I boot, I pass the Grub screen, then I get to the purple loading screen with dots as usual, then for some reason I got to the terminal login, with no GUI. startx gives me a black screen. Ctrl+F7-F8 didn't help either. It's similar to: After the update today no graphical interface anymore - 12.04 I followed the instructions at the end, to flush the ATI drivers (which I had installed), and fall back to the community drivers. That made me lose the login! Now I just get a black screen after the Ubuntu loading screen. I can still access the console through recovery, and I've gotten into VESA mode once or twice (not reproducible, for some reason). I've tried various permutations of xorg.conf, without success. Xorg -configure fails for now, though I might be able to get it to work. apt-get update/upgrade doesn't improve anything either. However, both Windows and the 12.04 Live CD still work beautifully, and I know that all my data is still there. Is there any way that I could somehow take the configuration from the Live CD and roll with it? I know that I could reinstall, but that sucks, frankly, especially given that there's no straight-forward way of keeping the home (which, incidentally, is unaccessible from the Live CD) Thank you. Update: it seems that the fglrx drivers are still active, even after I've --purged them. From Xorg.0.log: [ 18.235] (WW) fglrx(0): *********************************************************** [ 18.235] (WW) fglrx(0): * DRI initialization failed * [ 18.235] (WW) fglrx(0): * kernel module (fglrx.ko) may be missing or incompatible * [ 18.235] (WW) fglrx(0): * 2D and 3D acceleration disabled * [ 18.235] (WW) fglrx(0): *********************************************************** [ 18.235] Fatal server error: [ 18.235] AddScreen/ScreenInit failed for driver 0 There's also a mention of the "fbdev" module. What is it? PARTIALLY SOLVED: I've undone the damage from the fglrx purge. I'm still mystified as to why uninstalling the packages didn't kill fglrx entirely, but I've now recovered the prompt. The solution to the DRI initialization error was to add radeon.modeset=0 to the GRUB boot options. So I'm back to being dropped to a prompt without any GUI. startx gives me a bunch of messages, though no obvious errors. I have little reason to suspect the video drivers, as they worked fine before today. There is no apparent error message in any of the log files. UPDATE: When I startx, I get an error, Plymounth command failed mountall: Disconnected from Plymouth This is all over the Internet, but I have not found anything that works for me yet. UPDATE 3: If I press ESC during boot, the splash screen (Plymouth!) disappears, and I no longer have any error from Plymouth. The last error message is: Stopping mount filesystems on boot I can then Ctrl+Alt+F1 to get the TTY1, but startx still does not work. Sadly, the Internet knows nothing about this error message, and neither do I. Help!

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Proper attribution of derived work in a GPL project

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Is Java Open?

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

    Read the article

  • OWB 11.2.0.2: Managing Use of Optional OWB Features

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

    Read the article

  • SilverlightShow for 06-12 Dec 2010

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Is Java free/open source or not?

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • The Case for Complimentary Software Copies

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

    Read the article

  • GPL'ing code of a third party?

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Relicense BSD 2/3-clause code to GPL

    - by Brecht Machiels
    Suppose I release some source code under the new BSD license. Is it allowed for someone else to take this code, make modifications to it and distribute it under the terms of the GPL? From Wikipedia: Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the current 2-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. I'm assuming this implies that one can relicense new-BSD licensed code to GPL?

    Read the article

  • Using a particular font in a commercial game

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Can I make my drives visible and change their partition type without losing my data?

    - by user165408
    I have made a lot of mistakes and now I cannot see my hard disk nor I can start my operating system on my laptop. All my passwords and important files on my hdd without any backup. I followed this course of action Changed my hard disk partitions to dynamic just for getting 5th partition. (1st mistake) Decreased partitions to 4 again. Backed up operating system from 4th to 3rd partition with Norton Ghost. Booted from a live CD for Windows XP. Formatted 4th partition and moved my all important data from 1st and 2nd partitions to the 4th partition. Deleted 1st and 2nd partitions and got 1 partition from half of empty space. So I have just 3 partitions and empty space between 1st and 2nd partitions. Tried to install Windows 8 to the first partition but it did not allow because it is dynamic. Also it did not allow to install to other partitions. Tried to install Windows XP to the 1st partition but it said if I continue I cannot use other drivers. Therefore I escaped from installing it. Booted from the Windows XP live CD then increased 1st partiton to less than 400mb of empty space. Therefore I thought it will be adjacent but it was shown as 2 partitions. In my computer I see just 3 drivers. Using Norton Ghost I recovered my OS to the 1st partition. (2nd mistake it was on 4th partition originally) Booted from a Windows XP live CD I tried to install bcdedit to the Windows XP live CD but it did not work. Then I tried to install EaseUS Partition Master Home Edition. It was installed with errors then I start it and it showed me an error like there is no hard disk. I looked to my PC and my drivers were not there. Booted from the Norton Ghost CD and it did not show me my drivers either, but before I was able to see them. I checked numbers of partition shown by the Norton Ghost utility and they are still have same numbers so I have to see my drivers but I cannot see them now. My hard disk is shown as extarnal dynamic now so I cannot see any drive in my PC in the live Windows XP. There are two options; first one is import extarnal disk and second one is convert disk to basic. Will they delete my data? I fear booting from CDs like Windows XP live CD, Norton Ghost CD, and the operating system CD/DVD, because they may overwrite a few MB their data to my data. These recover tools are already exist in Windows XP live CD by The Ultimate Boot CD for Windows. Can any of them help me? CompuAppa SwissKnife V3 DBXtract Disk Investigator Fab's AutoBackup 2.0 FileRecovery Floppy Repair Free Undelete Handy Recovery Recovery Manager Restorastion Restorastion Help File by UBCD4Win UnChk Unstoppable Copier Finally How can I make it so that my drives are visible again without losing my data? How can I convert my dynamic partitions to basic without losing my data?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • How to change Port 27000 from filtered to open status

    - by Nadarajah Ranjan
    In my ubuntu box I am running flexlm licensing software on port 27000 and I am able to pull the license from the this port to run the simulation software locally. I am also trying to run the same software in another Linux machine (opensuse) by using the flexlm license from the Ubuntu box. However, my opensuse box is unable to communicate with port 27000 in my Ubuntu box. I have turned off the firewall on the Ubuntu box, played around with iptables and when I do a nmap from my opensuse box to Ubuntu box the message I get is that port 27000 is on filtered status. My understanding is that filtered status does not allow the opensuse box to communicate with Ubuntu. My question is how to change port 27000 from filtered status to open status? Hope someone can help me out. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • The use of LGPL for Commercial use

    - by Smarty Twiti
    I am trying to make my first app for sale, I would like to ask some questions for those who have already sold their software: Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers? for example, if your customers/ competitors from the market reveal technology/secrets that you used in your solution (as LGPL requires that you make a Dynamic Link (.DLL) for your libs and you clearly tell the use of a Lib/Framework ...). Full story: For my project, I used a framework LGPL/commercial (Dual License) the second one it was too expensive (about 3000 USD) which pushed me to use LGPL.. however I still concerned.. That is why I ask for advise and especially motivations... Please do not hesitate to participate... Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Are there compatibility issues opening Visual Studio Professional projects in Visual Studio Express, and vice versa? [migrated]

    - by theGreenCabbage
    Disclaimer: I have taken a look at the 50+ StackExchange forums to find the right place, and it seems /Programmers/ is the most suitable Exchange for this. If this is the wrong place to ask this, however, please let me know - I will personally delete the thread. I am in the process of downloading a single license for Visual Studio 2013 for my firm of 2-3 developers. One license is approximately $498.00 USD. As a small firm, our funds are short, but since we will be creating commercial software, we decided we will be needing the features of the Professional edition. At the same time, our decision is to use the Express edition for the rest of the two developers. My question is - will there be compatibility issues between Express projects and Professional projects for Visual Studio?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91  | Next Page >