Search Results

Search found 51 results on 3 pages for 'redistribution'.

Page 1/3 | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Redistribution of sqlpackage.exe [SSDT]

    - by jamiet
    This is a short note for anyone that may be interested in redistributing sqlpackage.exe. If this isn’t you then no need to keep reading. Ostensibly this is here for anyone that bingles for this information. sqlpackage.exe is a command-line that ships with SQL Server Development Tools (SSDT) in SQL Server 2012 and its main purpose (amongst other things) is to deploy .dacpac files from the command-line. Its quite conceivable that one might want to install only sqlpackage.exe rather than the full SSDT suite (for example on a production server) and I myself have recently had that need. I enquired to the SSDT product team about the possibility of doing this. I said: Back in VS DB Proj days it was possible to use VSDBCMD.exe on a machine that did not have the full VS shell install by shipping lots of pre-requisites along for the ride (details at How to: Prepare a Database for Deployment From a Command Prompt by Using VSDBCMD.EXE). Is there a similar mechanism for using VSDBMCD.exe’s replacement, sqlpackage.exe? here was the reply from Barclay Hill who heads up the development team: Yes, SQLPackage.exe is the analogy of VSDBCMD.exe. You can acquire separately, in a stand-alone package, by installing DACFX. You can get it from: Feature pack is here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29065 Web Platform Installer here: http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/install.aspx?appid=DACFX You will notice it has dependencies on SQLDOM and SQLCLRTYPES.  WebPI will install these for you, but it is al carte on the feature pack. So, now you know. I didn’t enquire about licensing of DACFX but given SSDT is free I am going to assume that the same applies to DACFX too. @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • Redistribution of sqlpackage.exe [SSDT]

    - by jamiet
    This is a short note for anyone that may be interested in redistributing sqlpackage.exe. If this isn’t you then no need to keep reading. Ostensibly this is here for anyone that bingles for this information. sqlpackage.exe is a command-line that ships with SQL Server Development Tools (SSDT) in SQL Server 2012 and its main purpose (amongst other things) is to deploy .dacpac files from the command-line. Its quite conceivable that one might want to install only sqlpackage.exe rather than the full SSDT suite (for example on a production server) and I myself have recently had that need. I enquired to the SSDT product team about the possibility of doing this. I said: Back in VS DB Proj days it was possible to use VSDBCMD.exe on a machine that did not have the full VS shell install by shipping lots of pre-requisites along for the ride (details at How to: Prepare a Database for Deployment From a Command Prompt by Using VSDBCMD.EXE). Is there a similar mechanism for using VSDBMCD.exe’s replacement, sqlpackage.exe? here was the reply from Barclay Hill who heads up the development team: Yes, SQLPackage.exe is the analogy of VSDBCMD.exe. You can acquire separately, in a stand-alone package, by installing DACFX. You can get it from: Feature pack is here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29065 Web Platform Installer here: http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/install.aspx?appid=DACFX You will notice it has dependencies on SQLDOM and SQLCLRTYPES.  WebPI will install these for you, but it is al carte on the feature pack. So, now you know. I didn’t enquire about licensing of DACFX but given SSDT is free I am going to assume that the same applies to DACFX too. @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • B-trees that use redistribution on insertion

    - by Phenom
    If I insert the following keys into a B-tree of order 4 (meaning 4 pointers and 3 elements in each node), I get the following B-tree. G / \ A IY Would it look any different if redistribution on insertion were used? How does redistribution on insertion work?

    Read the article

  • Looking for 'WinHlp32.exe compatible' replacement for free redistribution under vista and windows 7

    - by richardboon
    Our software installs a package of legacy software for the client, some of it has old hlp file from 3rd party vendor requiring winhlp32.exe (note: we have no legal right to modify the hlp). Those client may only have cd/dvd and might not have internet access, etc. So I need a free 'WinHlp32.exe compatible' replacement for our redistribution under vista and windows 7. Background of problem: -Microsoft stopped including the 32-bit Help file viewer in Windows releases beginning with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. -Starting with the release of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, third-party software developers are no longer authorized to redistribute WinHlp32.exe with their programs. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

    Read the article

  • Looking for 'WinHlp32.exe compatible' replacement for free redistribution under vista and windows 7

    - by richardboon
    Our software installs a package of legacy software for the client, some of it has old hlp file from 3rd party vendor requiring winhlp32.exe (note: we have no legal right to modify the hlp). Those client may only have cd/dvd and might not have internet access, etc. So I need a free 'WinHlp32.exe compatible' replacement for our redistribution under vista and windows 7. Background of problem: -Microsoft stopped including the 32-bit Help file viewer in Windows releases beginning with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. -Starting with the release of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, third-party software developers are no longer authorized to redistribute WinHlp32.exe with their programs. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

    Read the article

  • Does this licensing clause allow redistribution of this application?

    - by George Edison
    As a software developer, I find a frequent need to create icons for my applications. Nothing has ever worked as well as IcoFX for this purpose. Unfortunately, the program is no longer free - but I still have the installer for an older version. My question is whether or not I can distribute copies of the installer. The license agreement contains the following pertinent clauses: 6. All redistributions of the Software's files must retain all copyright notices and web site addresses that are currently in place, and must include this list of conditions without modification. 7. None of the Software's files may be redistributed for profit or as part of another Software package without express written permission of the Author. 10. The Author reserves his rights to modify this agreement in the future. The first two clauses would seem to suggest that I can legally distribute verbatim copies of the installer but the last clause has me confused. If the author modifies the agreement and removes the ability to distribute copies, does it apply to my copy that I downloaded a while back?

    Read the article

  • Using Fluent NHibernate in commercial application

    - by Paja
    I want to use Fluent NHibernate in commercial desktop application, and I'm little concerned about the licensing. I've downloaded Fluent NHibernate precompiled binaries, and it contains this list of files: Antlr3.Runtime.dll Castle.Core.dll Castle.DynamicProxy2.dll FluentNHibernate.dll Iesi.Collections.dll log4net.dll NHibernate.dll NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle.dll I guess I will have to add all of these files to my Inno Setup script, which will install them on user's computer. But what should I do to comply to all of the licenses associated with each file? I'm sure I'm not the first who wants to use Fluent NHibernate in commercial application, so I hope I won't have to study each of the licenses. I'm not a lawyer.

    Read the article

  • Reverse engineering and redistributing code from .NET Framework

    - by ToxicAvenger
    Once or twice I have been running into the following issue: Classes I want to reuse in my applications (and possibly redistribute) exist in the .NET Framework assemblies, but are marked internal or private. So it is impossible to reuse them directly. One way is to disassemble them, pick the pieces you need, put them in a different namespace, recompile (this can be some effort, but usually works quite well). My question is: Is this legal? Is this only legal for the classes of the Framework which are available as source code anyway? Is it illegal? I think that Microsoft marks them internal or private primarily so that they don't have to support them or can change the interfaces later. But some pieces - be it SharePoint or WCF - are almost impossible to properly extend by only using public classes from the apis. And rewriting everything from scratch generates a huge amount of effort, before you even start solving the problem you intended to solve. This is in my eyes not a "dirty" approach per se. The classes Microsoft ships are obviously well tested, if I reuse them under a different namespace I have "control" over them. If Microsoft changes the original implementation, my code won't be affected (some internals in WCF changed quite a bit with v4). It is not a super-clean approach. I would much prefer Microsoft making several classes public, because there are some nice classes hidden inside the framework.

    Read the article

  • OpenSource License Validation [closed]

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

    Read the article

  • Does this BSD-like license achieve what I want it to?

    - by Joseph Szymborski
    I was wondering if this license is: self defeating just a clone of an existing, better established license practical any more "corporate-friendly" than the GPL too vague/open ended and finally, if there is a better license that achieves a similar effect? I wanted a license that would (in simple terms) be as flexible/simple as the "Simplified BSD" license (which is essentially the MIT license) allow anyone to make modifications as long as I'm attributed require that I get a notification that such a derived work exists require that I have access to the source code and be given license to use the code not oblige the author of the derivative work to have to release the source code to the general public not oblige the author of the derivative work to license the derivative work under a specific license Here is the proposed license, which is just the simplified BSD with a couple of additional clauses (all of which are bolded). Copyright (c) (year), (author) (email) 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. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions of source code. The copyright holder(s) must be notified of any redistributions in binary form The copyright holder(s) must be granted access to the source code and/or the binary form of any redistribution upon the copyright holder's request. 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.

    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

  • Picking the right license

    - by nightcracker
    Hey, I have some trouble with picking the right license for my works. I have a few requirements: Not copyleft like the GNU (L)GPL and allows for redistribution under other licenses Allows other people to redistribute your (modified) work but prevents that other people freely make money off my work (they need to ask/buy a commercial license if they want to) Compatible with the GNU (L)GPL Not responsible for any damage caused by my work Now, I wrote my own little license based on the BSD and CC Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licenses, but I am not sure if it will hold in court. Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved. Redistribution of this work, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All redistributions must attribute <copyright holder> as the original author or licensor of this work (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). 2. All redistributions must be for non-commercial purposes and free of charge unless specific written permission by <copyright holder> is given. This work is provided by <copyright holder> "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed. <copyright holder> is not liable for any damage arising in any way out of the use of this work. Now, you could help me by either: Point me to an existing license which is satisfies my requirements Confirm that my license has no major flaws and most likely would hold in court Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Configuring the expiry time for the messages destined to the "Expired message address" in Hornetq

    - by Rohit
    I have configured a message expiry destination in Hornetq as below <address-setting match="#"> <dead-letter-address>jms.queue.error</dead-letter-address> <expiry-address>jms.queue.error</expiry-address> <max-delivery-attempts>3</max-delivery-attempts> <redelivery-delay>2000</redelivery-delay> <max-size-bytes>10485760</max-size-bytes> <message-counter-history-day-limit>10</message-counter-history-day-limit> <address-full-policy>BLOCK</address-full-policy> <redistribution-delay>60000</redistribution-delay> </address-setting> And the messages do get redirected to the expiry address once the expiration time is exceeded. These messages live indefinitely on the expiry address, Is there a way to provide a expiry time for these messages so they live only limited time on the expiry address?

    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

  • 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

  • Software license restricting commercial usage like CC BY-NC-SA

    - by Nick
    I want to distribute my software under license like Creative Commons Attribution - Non commercial - Share Alike license, i.e. Redistribution of source code and binaries is freely. Modified version of program have to be distributed under the same license. Attribution to original project should be supplied to. Restrict any kind of commercial usage. However CC does not recommend to use their licenses for software. Is there this kind of software license I could apply? Better if public license, but as far as I know US laws says that only EULA could restrict usage of received copy?

    Read the article

  • MPL with Commercial Use Restrictions (And Other Questions)

    - by PythEch
    So basicly I want to use MPL 2.0 for my open source software but I also want to forbid commercial use. I'm not a legal expert, that's why I'm asking. Should I use dual-license (MPL + Modified BSD License)? Or what does sublicensing mean? If I wanted to license my project, I would include a notice to the header. What should I do if want to dual-license or sublicense? Also, is it OK to use nicknames as copyright owners? I am not able to distribute additional files (e.g LICENSE.txt, README.md etc) with the software simply because it is just a JS script. By open-source I mean not obfuscated JS code. So in this case, am I forced to use GPL to make redistribution of obfuscated work illegal? Thanks for reading, any help is appreciated, answering all of the questions is not essential.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Can I minify Javascript that requires copyright notice?

    - by Nathan Long
    I guess this is actually a legal question, but it relates to software. I'm about to include a JS plugin in a project. The comments include: 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. Is using this in my web site "redistribution?" If I minify this to conserve bandwidth, I assume it will strip all comments. If the answer to #1 is yes, doesn't that imply I'm legally not allowed to minify it? (That would stink, since I was planning to auto-minify all JS as part of the deploy process.)

    Read the article

  • How to bundle a native library and a JNI library inside a JAR?

    - by Alex B
    The library in question is Tokyo Cabinet. I want is to have the native library, JNI library, and all Java API classes in one JAR file to avoid redistribution headaches. There seems to be an attempt at this at GitHub, but It does not include the actual native library, only JNI library. It doesn't work (for me): when I use this JAR, the JVM does not even seem to find the JNI library which is packaged inside the JAR: java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no jtokyocabinet in java.library.path (tokyo_cabinet.clj:19)

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard dialog for constructing an ADO.Net connection string (that is redistributable)?

    - by rathkopf
    I want to use a standard dialog to solicit user input of an ADO.net connection string. It is trivial to do for the oledb connection string as described here: MSDN Article on MSDASC.DataLinks().Prompt I've also found examples that use Microsoft.Data.ConnectionUI.dll and MicrosoftData.ConnectionUI.Dialog.dll from VS (HOWTO: Using the Choose Data Source dialog of Visual Studio 2005 from your own code). Unfortunately these DLLs are not licensed for redistribution. Is there a standard dialog for choosing a data source that can be distributed with my application?

    Read the article

  • Deactivate dead OCS 2007 R2 Edge Server?

    - by slashp
    I'm having a surprising issue where our old OCS 2007 R2 Edge server died of hardware failure (no backup) in the middle of our move to Lync. How can I forcefully remove the Edge server from the organization without being able to deactivate the role from the server itself? I've noticed the correct procedure for uninstalling OCS 2007 R2 is as follows: If you are removing an Edge Server, a Mediation Server, an Archiving Server, or a Monitoring Server, remove the Office Communications Server 2007 R2 components in the following sequence: Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Edge Server Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Mediation Server Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Archiving Server Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Monitoring Server Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Core Components Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007 R2 Unified Communications Managed API 2.0 Core Redistribution package And to deactivate an Edge server: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd572832(v=office.13).aspx Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Archive Recorded Show from DVR

    - by BillN
    IF I have an AT&T U-Verse DVR, is there a way to copy the information off the DVR to an PC for Archiving/burning to a DVD? I know that I could connect the A/V outs on the DVR to the A/V inputs on a DVD Recorder, or to a capture card on a PC, and Play the show, and record in real-time on the DVD or PC, but if the show is say a World Cup Game, this would take 2-3 hours per. My thought is that the DVR is just a HardDrive, and the files have to be stored in an digital format, it should be possible to do a copy of some sort. I'm currently recording all of the WC games, but if I don't watch them right away, I'm concerned that I will push other programming that the rest of the family has recorded out, making me unpopular at home. Note, I'm talking about archiving for personal use, not redistribution or anything.

    Read the article

  • Why not install Msvcr71.dll into system32?

    - by hillu
    While looking for an authoritative source for the missing Msvcr71.dll that is needed by a few old applications, I stumbled across the MSDN article Redistribution of the shared C runtime component in Visual C++. The advice given to developers is to drop the DLL into the application's directory instead of system32 since DLLs in this directory are considered before the system paths. What can/will go wrong if I (as an administrator, not a developer) decide to take the lazy path and install Msvcr71.dll (and Msvcp71.dll while I'm at it) into the system32 directory (of 32 bit Windows XP or Windows 7 systems) instead of putting a copy in each application's directory? Is there another good solution to provide the applications with the needed DLLs that doesn't involve copying stuff to the application directories?

    Read the article

1 2 3  | Next Page >