Search Results

Search found 45469 results on 1819 pages for 'open source contributions'.

Page 1/1819 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Open Source Survey: Oracle Products on Top

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Oracle continues to work with the open source community to bring the most innovative and productive software to market (more). Oracle products received the most votes in several key categories of the 2010 Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards. With over 12,000 technologists reporting, these product earned top spots: Best Office Suite: OpenOffice.org Best Single Office Program: OpenOffice.org Writer Best Database: MySQL Best Virtualization Solution: VirtualBox "As the leading open source technology and service provider, Oracle continues to work with the community stakeholders to rapidly innovate many open source products for use in fully tested production environments," says Edward Screven, Oracle's chief corporate architect. "Supporting open source is important to Oracle and our customers, and we continue to invest in it." According to a recent report by the Linux Foundation, Oracle is one of the top ten contributors to the Linux Kernel. Oracle also contributes millions of lines of code to these important projects: OpenJDK: 7,002,579 Eclipse: 1,800,000 (#3 in active committers) MySQL: 5,073,113 NetBeans: 7,870,446 JSF: 701,980 Apache MyFaces Trinidad: 1,316,840 Hudson: 1,209,779 OpenOffice.org: 7,500,000

    Read the article

  • European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

    Read the article

  • MySQL 5.5

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    New performance and scalability enhancements, continued Investment in MySQL (see press release). "The latest release of MySQL further exemplifies Oracle's commitment to the MySQL community and investment in delivering rapid innovation and enhancements to the MySQL platform" said Edward Screven, Oracle's Chief Corporate Architect. MySQL is integral to Oracle's complete, open and integrated strategy. The MySQL 5.5 Community Edition, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and is available for free download, includes InnoDB as the default storage engine. We cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. For more on Oracle's Open Source offering, see Oracle.com/opensource or oss.oracle.com (for developers).

    Read the article

  • Getting a Database into Source Control

    - by Grant Fritchey
    For any number of reasons, from simple auditing, to change tracking, to automated deployment, to integration with application development processes, you’re going to want to place your database into source control. Using Red Gate SQL Source Control this process is extremely simple. SQL Source Control works within your SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) interface.  This means you can work with your databases in any way that you’re used to working with them. If you prefer scripts to using the GUI, not a problem. If you prefer using the GUI to having to learn T-SQL, again, that’s fine. After installing SQL Source Control, this is what you’ll see when you open SSMS:   SQL Source Control is now a direct piece of the SSMS environment. The key point initially is that I currently don’t have a database selected. You can even see that in the SQL Source Control window where it shows, in red, “No database selected – select a database in Object Explorer.” If I expand my Databases list in the Object Explorer, you’ll be able to immediately see which databases have been integrated with source control and which have not. There are visible differences between the databases as you can see here:   To add a database to source control, I first have to select it. For this example, I’m going to add the AdventureWorks2012 database to an instance of the SVN source control software (I’m using uberSVN). When I click on the AdventureWorks2012 database, the SQL Source Control screen changes:   I’m going to need to click on the “Link database to source control” text which will open up a window for connecting this database to the source control system of my choice.  You can pick from the default source control systems on the left, or define one of your own. I also have to provide the connection string for the location within the source control system where I’ll be storing my database code. I set these up in advance. You’ll need two. One for the main set of scripts and one for special scripts called Migrations that deal with different kinds of changes between versions of the code. Migrations help you solve problems like having to create or modify data in columns as part of a structural change. I’ll talk more about them another day. Finally, I have to determine if this is an isolated environment that I’m going to be the only one use, a dedicated database. Or, if I’m sharing the database in a shared environment with other developers, a shared database.  The main difference is, under a dedicated database, I will need to regularly get any changes that other developers have made from source control and integrate it into my database. While, under a shared database, all changes for all developers are made at the same time, which means you could commit other peoples work without proper testing. It all depends on the type of environment you work within. But, when it’s all set, it will look like this: SQL Source Control will compare the results between the empty folders in source control and the database, AdventureWorks2012. You’ll get a report showing exactly the list of differences and you can choose which ones will get checked into source control. Each of the database objects is scripted individually. You’ll be able to modify them later in the same way. Here’s the list of differences for my new database:   You can select/deselect all the objects or each object individually. You also get a report showing the differences between what’s in the database and what’s in source control. If there was already a database in source control, you’d only see changes to database objects rather than every single object. You can see that the database objects can be sorted by name, by type, or other choices. I’m going to add a comment such as “Initial creation of database in source control.” And then click on the Commit button which will put all the objects in my database into the source control system. That’s all it takes to get the objects into source control initially. Now is when things can get fun with breaking changes to code, automated deployments, unit testing and all the rest.

    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

  • 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

  • What are some examples of open source software that has turned into closed source software? [on hold]

    - by Verrier
    As the title says... can anyone think of any software that has made the transition from open source to closed source / proprietary? These could include software owned by the same company who decided to take a once open source offering and turn it into closed source... but I'm really looking for some examples of companies who developed a commercial closed source product off of an existing open source one (obviously with a permissive license).

    Read the article

  • Databases in Source Control

    - by Grant Fritchey
    I’ve been working as a database professional for quite a long time. But originally, I was a developer. And I loved being a developer. There was this constant feedback loop of a job well done, your code compiled and it ran. Every time this happened successfully, you’d check it into source control. These days you have to add another step; the code passed all the tests, unit, line, regression, qa, whatever, then into source control it goes. As a matter of fact, when I first made the jump from developer to DBA/database developer/database professional, source control was the one thing I couldn’t believe was missing from the DBA toolbox. Come to find out, source control was only the beginning of what was missing from your standard DBAs set of skills. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disrespecting the DBA. They’re focused where they should be, on your production data. But there has to be a method for developing applications that include databases and the database side of that development and deployment process has long been lacking. This lack of development and deployment methodologies is a part of what has given rise to some of the wackier implementations of Object Relational Mapping tools, the NoSQL movement, and some of the other foul cursing that is directed towards databases, DBAs, and database development by application developers. Some of that is well earned. A lot isn’t. But it is a fact that database professionals, in general, do not have as sophisticated a model for managing development and deployment as application developers do. We could charge out and start trying to come up with our own standards and methods. I’m sure people have done exactly that. However, I’m lazy, and not terribly bright. Rather than try to invent a whole new process, I’m going to look to my developer roots and choose instead to emulate the developers. They’re sitting over there across the hall from me working with SCRUM/Agile/Waterfall/Object Driven/Feature Driven/Test Driven development processes that they’ve been polishing for years. What if I just started working on database development the same way they work on code development? Win! Ah, but now I have to have a mechanism for treating my database like application code. First, I need a method for getting it into source control. That’s where Red Gate’s SQL Source Control comes into the picture. SQL Source Control works within SQL Server Management Studio to connect your database objects up to the source control system of your choice. Right out of the box SQL Source Control can link to TFS, SVN or Vault. With a little work you can connect it to Git or just about any other source control system. With the ability to get my database into source control, a lot of possibilities for more direct integration with the application development teams open up.

    Read the article

  • MUD source code

    - by Tchalvak
    I haven't been able to find a lot of the old, open source mud source codes. I find the way they did things very applicable to text-based/browser based games, and I'd love to be able to skim through parts of 'em for inspiration. For instance, we have this huge list of muds and the relationships between them, but little by way of access to source code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD_trees Often (I'm looking at you, dikumud, http://www.dikumud.com/links.aspx ) the sites of the mud itself doesn't even have a working link to the source. https://github.com/alexmchale/merc-mud has a copy of merc that I found, which certainly contains other works within it's history, but the pickings seems sparse. Does anyone have better resources for gaining access to MUD source code than these?

    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

  • 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

  • going from closed-source to open-source [closed]

    - by mspoerr
    I am thinking of releasing the source code of my application (Freeware at the moment). It is written in C++ with VisualStudio 2008 and all used 3rd-party libs are free or open-source and platform independent. The idea to release the source-code is very old, but till now I did not want to show the code because I am not sure if it is nice/well designed (I am not a professional developer), but the application is growing and help would be very welcome, but I want to keep control... What do I need to consider? Is there any best practice for this scenario? The code itself is one thing, but there is much more like license, documentation, project settings, 3rd party libs, platform (Sourceforge, other?)

    Read the article

  • Oracle Announces Oracle Cloud Office and Oracle Open Office 3.3

    - by Harald Behnke
    Oracle today introduced Oracle Cloud Office and Oracle Open Office 3.3, two complete, open standards-based office productivity suites for the desktop, web and mobile devices - helping users significantly improve productivity, reduce costs and achieve greater innovation across the enterprise.(View image)Oracle Cloud Office 1.0 is a web and mobile office suite that enables web 2.0-style collaboration and mobile document access. Compatibility with Microsoft Office and integration with Oracle Open Office enable rich and seamless offline editing of complex presentations, text and spreadsheet documents. Oracle Open Office 3.3 includes new enterprise connectors to Oracle Business Intelligence, Oracle E-Business Suite, other Oracle Applications and Microsoft Sharepoint, to allow for fast, seamless integration into existing enterprise software stacks. In addition, it adds increased stability, compatibility and performance at up to five times lower license cost compared to Microsoft Office. Based on the Open Document Format (ODF) and open web standards, Oracle Office enables users to share files on any system as it is compatible with both legacy Microsoft Office documents and modern web 2.0 publishing. The Oracle Office APIs and open standards-based approach provides IT users with flexibility, lower short and long-term costs and freedom from vendor lock-in - enabling organizations to build a complete Open Standard Office Stack. If you're interested to learn more, read our today's press release or visit oracle.com/office.

    Read the article

  • Open Source vs. Closed Source? Which one to choose? [closed]

    - by Rafal Chmiel
    So far, I was always creating open-source applications (or didn't publish them at all) because it was free for me to create a new CodePlex project, and upload everything. Couple of days ago I started wandering what kind of apps should I make, closed or open source. I can see "cons" and "pros" in both such as the ones below: Open Source: Pro, free project hosting (CodePlex is excellent for .NET app updates. ClickOnce etc) Pro, free help such as developers and designers Con, people can get your source code and (sometimes) use some of your code in their apps and make money Con, companies such as Microsoft, Twitter or Tumblr won't be looking forward in buying your project (like for example Twitter bought TweetDeck - TweetDeck being a closed source AIR application, of course) Closed Source: Pro, it's harder for people to copy your idea without the source code Pro, you're more likely to get acquired/bought by companies Con, no free hosting - you have to have a website to do so (not good for updates) Con, no free help What do you think? What do you think I should choose?

    Read the article

  • Digital Agenda in the EU means open standards after all

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes speech on Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda at Open Forum Europe 2010 Summit in Brussels refocuses the EU Digital Agenda on open standards. I say the speech scores a 90/100, smooth, smart, a little vicious at the fringes, maybe? Anyway, it shows the strategy might age and implement well. This is Dutch pragmatism at its best. The EU Digital Agenda (I give it an 85/100 score), while laudable, stops short of using the term. The next step for the European Commission is defining the term open standards. If they do that, and do it right, Vice President Kroes will go into history as having made a significant contribution towards global progress in e-government by possibly eradicating lock-in forever. Moreover, she will put Europe's SMEs in a better position to succeed in a global IT market filled with barriers to entry from players not fully understanding, using, or unpacking standards. Kroes' interesting suggestion that she will now explore a "legal proposal" on interoperability that will have an impact on all IT companies operating in the European market is more up for debate. An interoperability directive? One run by DG COMP or one run by DG INFSO, telecom style? Would something like that work? Would the industry like it? Would it help European governments? Possibly, if done right. The good thing was, Kroes pointed out that she will look for input from the industry. Kroes' track record is one of not being scared of taking on the Titans. She also wants to enact real, positive, lasting change. "I will not go anywhere", she said. All of that is good. And she does understand the importance of open standards. Let's now start discussing the details. Implementing the Digital Agenda is not simple. It requires collaboration across the various Directorates in the European Commission. Mounting a new Interoperability directive is also never attempted before. Getting it right is important. Even possibly finding out it cannot be done right and choosing a more light weight approach that is equally effective would be bold. Go Kroes!

    Read the article

  • Source-to-source compiler framework wanted

    - by cheungcc_2000
    Dear all, I used to use OpenC++ (http://opencxx.sourceforge.net/opencxx/html/overview.html) to perform code generation like: Source: class MyKeyword A { public: void myMethod(inarg double x, inarg const std::vector<int>& y, outarg double& z); }; Generated: class A { public: void myMethod(const string& x, double& y); // generated method below: void _myMehtod(const string& serializedInput, string& serializedOutput) { double x; std::vector<int> y; // deserialized x and y from serializedInput double z; myMethod(x, y, z); } }; This kind of code generation directly matches the use case in the tutorial of OpenC++ (http://www.csg.is.titech.ac.jp/~chiba/opencxx/tutorial.pdf) by writing a meta-level program for handling "MyKeyword", "inarg" and "outarg" and performing the code generation. However, OpenC++ is sort of out-of-date and inactive now, and my code generator can only work on g++ 3.2 and it triggers error on parsing header files of g++ of higher version. I have looked at VivaCore, but it does not provide the infra-structure for compiling meta-level program. I'm also looking at LLVM, but I cannot find documentation that tutor me on working out my source-to-source compilation usage. I'm also aware of the ROSE compiler framework, but I'm not sure whether it suits my usage, and whether its proprietary C++ front-end binary can be used in a commercial product, and whether a Windows version is available. Any comments and pointers to specific tutorial/paper/documentation are much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Open Source but not Free Software (or vice versa)

    - by TRiG
    The definition of "Free Software" from the Free Software Foundation: “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. The definition of "Open Source Software" from the Open Source Initiative: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. These definitions, although they derive from very different ideologies, are broadly compatible, and most Free Software is also Open Source Software and vice versa. I believe, however, that it is possible for this not to be the case: It is possible for software to be Open Source without being Free, or to be Free without being Open Source. Questions Is my belief correct? Is it possible for software to fall into one camp and not the other? Does any such software actually exist? Please give examples. Clarification I've already accepted an answer now, but I seem to have confused a lot of people, so perhaps a clarification is in order. I was not asking about the difference between copyleft (or "viral", though I don't like that term) and non-copyleft ("permissive") licenses. Nor was I asking about your personal idiosyncratic definitions of "Free" and "Open". I was asking about "Free Software as defined by the FSF" and "Open Source Software as defined by the OSI". Are the two always the same? Is it possible to be one without being the other? And the answer, it seems, is that it's impossible to be Free without being Open, but possible to be Open without being Free. Thank you everyone who actually answered the question.

    Read the article

  • How open is open core and is that open enough

    <b>ZDNet:</b> "The idea is that you make the center of your product open source, but put the rest under a paid license. This is supposed to make your venture capital backers happy. You gain the benefits of open source but customers aren&#8217;t &#8220;stealing&#8221; the software."

    Read the article

  • What is the economic rationale behind programmers who work on a open source project (free) instead of a commercial project (not free)?

    - by Kim Jong Woo
    I can't understand why some people dedicate so much hour into a completely open source project without closing it and yielding greater profit from it. I don't think profiting from your code is evil, I think it's a great motivator. Why do some people feel that commercial software and generating money from it is bad? There seems to be this black and white thinking that open source = good, commercial = bad. I hardly find this convincing, and often commercial companies which are supported by sales produce very good results. An open source software in the same niche can't compete against the corporation. Of course, sometimes this is completely the other way around where private companies produce inferior product compared to open source counterparts. So help me understand, why do programmers open source their code when there is commercial prospects for it? Shouldn't the rational programmer or human being make every effort to capitalize on their opportunity cost? Working on a open source project for months when you could've spent the same number of hours at commidity wage or some other monetary compensation?

    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

  • Hyperlinked, externalized source code documentation

    - by Dave Jarvis
    Why do we still embed natural language descriptions of source code (i.e., the reason why a line of code was written) within the source code, rather than as a separate document? Given the expansive real-estate afforded to modern development environments (high-resolution monitors, dual-monitors, etc.), an IDE could provide semi-lock-step panels wherein source code is visually separated from -- but intrinsically linked to -- its corresponding comments. For example, developers could write source code comments in a hyper-linked markup language (linking to additional software requirements), which would simultaneously prevent documentation from cluttering the source code. What shortcomings would inhibit such a software development mechanism? A mock-up to help clarify the question: When the cursor is at a particular line in the source code (shown with a blue background, above), the documentation that corresponds to the line at the cursor is highlighted (i.e., distinguished from the other details). As noted in the question, the documentation would stay in lock-step with the source code as the cursor jumps through the source code. A hot-key could switch between "documentation mode" and "development mode". Potential advantages include: More source code and more documentation on the screen(s) at once Ability to edit documentation independently of source code (regardless of language?) Write documentation and source code in parallel without merge conflicts Real-time hyperlinked documentation with superior text formatting Quasi-real-time machine translation into different natural languages Every line of code can be clearly linked to a task, business requirement, etc. Documentation could automatically timestamp when each line of code was written (metrics) Dynamic inclusion of architecture diagrams, images to explain relations, etc. Single-source documentation (e.g., tag code snippets for user manual inclusion). Note: The documentation window can be collapsed Workflow for viewing or comparing source files would not be affected How the implementation happens is a detail; the documentation could be: kept at the end of the source file; split into two files by convention (filename.c, filename.c.doc); or fully database-driven By hyperlinked documentation, I mean linking to external sources (such as StackOverflow or Wikipedia) and internal documents (i.e., a wiki on a subdomain that could cross-reference business requirements documentation) and other source files (similar to JavaDocs). Related thread: What's with the aversion to documentation in the industry?

    Read the article

  • Is there any open source code analyzer for java which I can adopt my software metrics algorithm on it?

    - by daneshkohan
    I am doing my masters dissertation and I have conducted a software metrics. I need to adopt my metrics on an open source tool. I have found PMD and check style on sourceforge.net but there is not adequate explanation about their codes. However, I couldn't to find their source code to customize them. I will be appreciated, if you introduce one open source tool for java which I can customize it's code.

    Read the article

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