Search Results

Search found 2457 results on 99 pages for 'bsd license'.

Page 5/99 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Generate reasonable length license key with asymmetric encryption?

  - by starkos

  I've been looking at this all day. I probably should have walked away from it hours ago; I might be missing something obvious at this point. Short version: Is there a way to generate and boil down an asymmetrically encrypted hash to a reasonable number of unambiguous, human readable characters? Long version: I want to generate license keys for my software. I would like these keys to be of a reasonable length (25-36 characters) and easily read and entered by a human (so avoid ambiguous characters like the number 0 and the capital letter O). Finally--and this seems to be the kicker--I'd really like to use asymmetric encryption to make it more difficult to generate new keys. I've got the general approach: concatenate my information (user name, product version, a salt) into a string and generate a SHA1() hash from that, then encrypt the hash with my private key. On the client, build the SHA1() hash from the same information, then decrypt the license with the public key and see if I've got a match. Since this is a Mac app, I looked at AquaticPrime, but that generates a relatively large license file rather than a string. I can work with that if I must, but as a user I really like the convenience of a license key that I can read and print. I also looked at CocoaFob which does generate a key, but it is so long that I'd want to deliver it as a file anyway. I fooled around with OpenSSL for a while but couldn't come up with anything of a reasonable length. So...am I missing something obvious here? Is there a way to generate and boil down an asymmetrically encrypted hash to a reasonable number of unambiguous, human readable characters? I'm open to buying a solution. But I work on a number of different of platforms, so I'd want something portable. Everything I've looked at so far has been platform specific. Many, many thanks for a solution! PS - Yes, I know it will still be cracked. I'm trying to come up with something reasonable that, as a user, I would still find friendly.

  Read the article

• TotalPhase Aardvark driver's GPL license

  - by Philip

  I'm using an SPI host adapter for a project. The Aardvark from TotalPhase. And I did something crazy, I read that EULA license that everyone just clicks through. The driver installation license includes these bits: This driver installer package also includes a WIN32 driver that is entirely based on the libusb-win32 project (release 0.1.10.1). ... LICENSE: The software in this package is distributed under the following licenses: Driver: GNU General Public License (GPL) Library, Test Files: GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Now, my understanding of of the GPL is that it's sticky and viral. If you include software then the whole project has to be released under the GPL (if you distribute it, you can do whatever you want with in-house projects). If the driver was like the library, and was licensed under the LGPL, it could be used by my closed source proprietary project, as long as it's source and license was passed along with it. But it's not, it's pure GPL. If I include this driver in my project and distribute it, am I required to release my project under the GPL?

  Read the article

• Choosing an open source license such that maximum value is added to a startup

  - by echo-flow

  There are many companies that produce open source software products, and many business models that these companies can use. I'm particularly interested in companies like 280 North, the company behind Objective-J and Cappucino frameworks. My understanding of this organization's business model is that they: worked to develop a tool which added significant value to developers, released the tool under an open source license, built a community around the tool (which was helped by the project's open source licensing), created interesting demos illustrating the project's value All of these things added value to the project, and the company that owned it. Finally, 280 North was sold to Motorola. My question has to do with the role of software licensing in this particular business model. 280 North licensed their software projects under the LGPL, which gave them some proprietary control over how the project could be used. I believe that the LGPL is what's known as a "weak copyleft" license, meaning that the project can be linked to, without the linking code also being licensed under the LGPL; but software derived directly from the project would need to be licensed under the LGPL. For web-oriented libraries in particular, weak copyleft, or non-copyleft licensing seems to be quite common; I can't think of a single example of a popular or well-known web-oriented library that is licensed under the GPL (or AGPL). The question then, is, how much value would a weak copyleft license like the LGPL add to a software venture like 280 North, versus a non-copyleft license, such as the BSD license or the Apache Software License? I'd really appreciate any insight anyone can offer into this, but I'd be most interested in answers that can cite other companies as case studies or examples.

  Read the article

• Why is it java code indented as BSD KNF Style and C C++ code indented as Allman or BSD style?

  - by Caffeine

  I do understand that coding convention is a matter of preference, and that different coding conventions have different subtle advantages or shortcomings, and depending on what one wants, one should choose his/her style. But why is usually Java written where the opening brace is on the same line as the function definition of control statement, and in C or C++ the curly braces have a line of their own? BSD KNF style if (data != NULL && res > 0) { if (JS_DefineProperty(cx, o, "data", STRING_TO_JSVAL(JS_NewStringCopyN(cx, data, res)), NULL, NULL, JSPROP_ENUMERATE) != 0) { QUEUE_EXCEPTION("Internal error!"); goto err; } PQfreemem(data); } else { if (JS_DefineProperty(cx, o, "data", OBJECT_TO_JSVAL(NULL), NULL, NULL, JSPROP_ENUMERATE) != 0) { QUEUE_EXCEPTION("Internal error!"); goto err; } } Allman or BSD Style if (x == y) { something(); somethingelse(); } Courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style

  Read the article

• Can you change a license once you pick one?

  - by Adam

  I am working on a product that I don't feel is completely ready but I have a set of users that are very interested in using it now as "alpha" testers. I would like to give them the product now for free as "alpha" testers, but I would like to later license the software. Is this possible? Can anyone point me to any links/books/articles/etc? Thanks. EDIT: Due to the lack of my clarity and the reponses to the question I thought I should add this statement. I haven't decided if I am going to close-source or open-source this project yet. The user base that wants to get their hands on it now has kind of surprised me and I was concerned about what my options are as far as being able to give it to them now as open-source and later change to closed-source, or even vice versa. Thanks to everyone who has answered and commented. I appreciate it the insights.

  Read the article

• Objective-C runtime reflection (objc_msgSend): does it violate the iPhone Developer License Agreemen

  - by GamingHorror

  Does code like this (potentially) violate the iPhone Developer License Agreement? Class clazz = NSClassFromString(@"WNEntity"); id entity = [clazz entityWithImage:@"Icon.png"]; SEL setPositionSelector = NSSelectorFromString(@"setPosition:"); objc_msgSend(entity, setPositionSelector, CGPointMake(200, 100)); I'm working on code that dynamically allocates classes from XML and calls methods on them via objc_msgSend. It's just very convenient constructing my objects that way but it worries me because i have no idea whether this is ok or violates the License by dynamically executing code or maybe even calling private (?) API functions. They wouldn't be documented if they were private, right? Can someone shed some light on this? Have you had an App approved or rejected using code similar to the above? I'm pretty sure that this is ok but i wan't to hear it from someone else! :)

  Read the article

• Xcode license agreement different than Apple Developer Agreement?

  - by longpine

  The Apple Developer Agreement (on their website when signing up for a developer account) says: "Apple reserves the right, at its discretion, to modify this Agreement, including any rules and policies at any time." And also: "You agree to follow Apple's Guidelines For Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights as published on Apple's website at www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html ("Guidelines") and as may be modified from time to time." If I buy a Mac with OS X, it comes with Xcode, correct? In that case what does the license agreement for Xcode say? Does it contain the clauses above, or anything similar? If anyone wants to post a copy of the license agreement here, that would be helpful, but I'm not sure if copyright would allow that.

  Read the article

• What's a reliable and practical way to protect software with a user license ?

  - by Frank

  I know software companies use licenses to protect their softwares, but I also know there are keygen programs to bypass them. I'm a Java developer, if I put my program online for sale, what's a reliable and practical way to protect it ? How about something like this, would it work ? <1> I use ProGuard to protect the source code. <2> Sign the executable Jar file. <3> Since my Java program only need to work on PC [I need to use JDIC in it], I wrap the final executable Jar into an .exe file which makes it harder to decompile. <4> When a user first downloads and runs my app, it checks for a Pass file on his PC. <5> If the Pass file doesn't exist, run the app in demo mode, exits in 5 minutes. <6> When demo exits a panel opens with a "Buy Now" button. This demo mode repeats forever unless step <7> happens. <7> If user clicks the "Buy Now" button, he fills out a detailed form [name, phone, email ...], presses a "Verify Info" button to save the form to a Pass file, leaving license Key # field empty in this newly generated Pass file. <8> Pressing "Verify Info" button will take him to a html form pre-filled with his info to verify what he is buying, also hidden in the form's input filed is a license Key number. He can now press a "Pay Now" button to goto Paypal to finish the process. <9> The hidden license Key # will be passed to Paypal as product Id info and emailed to me. <10> After I got the payment and Paypal email, I'll add the license Key # to a valid license Key list, and put it on my site, only I know the url. The list is updated hourly. <11> Few hours later when the user runs the app again, it can find the Pass file on his PC, but the license Key # value is empty, so it goes to the valid list url to see if its license Key # is on the list, if so, write the license Key # into the Pass file, and the next time it starts again, it will find the valid license Key # and start in purchased mode without exiting in 5 minutes. <12> If it can't find its license Key # on the list from my url, run in demo mode. <13> In order to prevent a user from copying and using another paid user's valid Pass file, the license Key # is unique to each PC [I'm trying to find how], so a valid Pass file only works on one PC. Only after a user has paid will Paypal email me the valid license Key # with his payment. <14> The Id checking goes like this : Use the CPU ID : "CPU_01-02-ABC" for example, encrypt it to the result ID : "XeR5TY67rgf", and compare it to the list on my url, if "XeR5TY67rgf" is not on my valid user list, run in demo mode. If it exists write "XeR5TY67rgf" into the Pass File license field. In order to get a unique license Key, can I use his PC's CPU Id ? Or something unique and useful [ relatively less likely to change ]. If so let's say this CPU ID is "CPU_01-02-ABC", I can encrypt it to something like "XeR5TY67rgf", and pass it to Paypal as product Id in the hidden html form field, then I'll get it from Paypal's email notification, and add it to the valid license Key # list on the url. So, even if a hacker knows it uses CPU Id, he can't write it into the Pass file field, because only encrypted Ids are valid Ids. And only my program knows how to generate the encrypted Ids. And even if another hacker knows the encrypted Id is hidden in the html form input field, as long as it's not on my url list, it's still invalid. Can anyone find any flaw in the above system ? Is it practical ? And most importantly how do I get hold of this unique ID that can represent a user's PC ? Frank

  Read the article

• Adding User License Agreement in Solaris package

  - by Adil

  I have asked similar question for Linux RPM (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2132828/adding-license-agreement-in-rpm-package). Now i have same query for Solaris package. I could not get any helpful link / details if it is possible. But I have found a package which does exactly the same thing but how it has been implemented, its not mentioned. $pkgadd -d . SUNWsamfsr SUNWsamfsu Processing package instance from Sun SAM and Sun SAM-QFS software Solaris 10 (root)(i386) 4.6.5,REV=5.10.2007.03.12 Sun SAMFS - Storage & Archiving Management File System Copyright (c) 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------- In order to install SUNWsamfsr, you must accept the terms of the Sun License Agreement. Enter "y" if you do, "n" if you don't, or "v" to view agreement. y -The administrator commands will be executable by root only (group bin). If this is the desired value, enter "y". If you want to change the specified value enter "c". y ... ... Any ideas how to implement such thing for Solaris package?

  Read the article

• Does anyone really understand how HFSC scheduling in Linux/BSD works?

  - by Mecki

  I read the original SIGCOMM '97 PostScript paper about HFSC, it is very technically, but I understand the basic concept. Instead of giving a linear service curve (as with pretty much every other scheduling algorithm), you can specify a convex or concave service curve and thus it is possible to decouple bandwidth and delay. However, even though this paper mentions to kind of scheduling algorithms being used (real-time and link-share), it always only mentions ONE curve per scheduling class (the decoupling is done by specifying this curve, only one curve is needed for that). Now HFSC has been implemented for BSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.) using the ALTQ scheduling framework and it has been implemented Linux using the TC scheduling framework (part of iproute2). Both implementations added two additional service curves, that were NOT in the original paper! A real-time service curve and an upper-limit service curve. Again, please note that the original paper mentions two scheduling algorithms (real-time and link-share), but in that paper both work with one single service curve. There never have been two independent service curves for either one as you currently find in BSD and Linux. Even worse, some version of ALTQ seems to add an additional queue priority to HSFC (there is no such thing as priority in the original paper either). I found several BSD HowTo's mentioning this priority setting (even though the man page of the latest ALTQ release knows no such parameter for HSFC, so officially it does not even exist). This all makes the HFSC scheduling even more complex than the algorithm described in the original paper and there are tons of tutorials on the Internet that often contradict each other, one claiming the opposite of the other one. This is probably the main reason why nobody really seems to understand how HFSC scheduling really works. Before I can ask my questions, we need a sample setup of some kind. I'll use a very simple one as seen in the image below: Here are some questions I cannot answer because the tutorials contradict each other: What for do I need a real-time curve at all? Assuming A1, A2, B1, B2 are all 128 kbit/s link-share (no real-time curve for either one), then each of those will get 128 kbit/s if the root has 512 kbit/s to distribute (and A and B are both 256 kbit/s of course), right? Why would I additionally give A1 and B1 a real-time curve with 128 kbit/s? What would this be good for? To give those two a higher priority? According to original paper I can give them a higher priority by using a curve, that's what HFSC is all about after all. By giving both classes a curve of [256kbit/s 20ms 128kbit/s] both have twice the priority than A2 and B2 automatically (still only getting 128 kbit/s on average) Does the real-time bandwidth count towards the link-share bandwidth? E.g. if A1 and B1 both only have 64kbit/s real-time and 64kbit/s link-share bandwidth, does that mean once they are served 64kbit/s via real-time, their link-share requirement is satisfied as well (they might get excess bandwidth, but lets ignore that for a second) or does that mean they get another 64 kbit/s via link-share? So does each class has a bandwidth "requirement" of real-time plus link-share? Or does a class only have a higher requirement than the real-time curve if the link-share curve is higher than the real-time curve (current link-share requirement equals specified link-share requirement minus real-time bandwidth already provided to this class)? Is upper limit curve applied to real-time as well, only to link-share, or maybe to both? Some tutorials say one way, some say the other way. Some even claim upper-limit is the maximum for real-time bandwidth + link-share bandwidth? What is the truth? Assuming A2 and B2 are both 128 kbit/s, does it make any difference if A1 and B1 are 128 kbit/s link-share only, or 64 kbit/s real-time and 128 kbit/s link-share, and if so, what difference? If I use the seperate real-time curve to increase priorities of classes, why would I need "curves" at all? Why is not real-time a flat value and link-share also a flat value? Why are both curves? The need for curves is clear in the original paper, because there is only one attribute of that kind per class. But now, having three attributes (real-time, link-share, and upper-limit) what for do I still need curves on each one? Why would I want the curves shape (not average bandwidth, but their slopes) to be different for real-time and link-share traffic? According to the little documentation available, real-time curve values are totally ignored for inner classes (class A and B), they are only applied to leaf classes (A1, A2, B1, B2). If that is true, why does the ALTQ HFSC sample configuration (search for 3.3 Sample configuration) set real-time curves on inner classes and claims that those set the guaranteed rate of those inner classes? Isn't that completely pointless? (note: pshare sets the link-share curve in ALTQ and grate the real-time curve; you can see this in the paragraph above the sample configuration). Some tutorials say the sum of all real-time curves may not be higher than 80% of the line speed, others say it must not be higher than 70% of the line speed. Which one is right or are they maybe both wrong? One tutorial said you shall forget all the theory. No matter how things really work (schedulers and bandwidth distribution), imagine the three curves according to the following "simplified mind model": real-time is the guaranteed bandwidth that this class will always get. link-share is the bandwidth that this class wants to become fully satisfied, but satisfaction cannot be guaranteed. In case there is excess bandwidth, the class might even get offered more bandwidth than necessary to become satisfied, but it may never use more than upper-limit says. For all this to work, the sum of all real-time bandwidths may not be above xx% of the line speed (see question above, the percentage varies). Question: Is this more or less accurate or a total misunderstanding of HSFC? And if assumption above is really accurate, where is prioritization in that model? E.g. every class might have a real-time bandwidth (guaranteed), a link-share bandwidth (not guaranteed) and an maybe an upper-limit, but still some classes have higher priority needs than other classes. In that case I must still prioritize somehow, even among real-time traffic of those classes. Would I prioritize by the slope of the curves? And if so, which curve? The real-time curve? The link-share curve? The upper-limit curve? All of them? Would I give all of them the same slope or each a different one and how to find out the right slope? I still haven't lost hope that there exists at least a hand full of people in this world that really understood HFSC and are able to answer all these questions accurately. And doing so without contradicting each other in the answers would be really nice ;-)

  Read the article

• Does anyone really understand how HFSC scheduling in Linux/BSD works?

  - by Mecki

  I read the original SIGCOMM '97 PostScript paper about HFSC, it is very technically, but I understand the basic concept. Instead of giving a linear service curve (as with pretty much every other scheduling algorithm), you can specify a convex or concave service curve and thus it is possible to decouple bandwidth and delay. However, even though this paper mentions to kind of scheduling algorithms being used (real-time and link-share), it always only mentions ONE curve per scheduling class (the decoupling is done by specifying this curve, only one curve is needed for that). Now HFSC has been implemented for BSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.) using the ALTQ scheduling framework and it has been implemented Linux using the TC scheduling framework (part of iproute2). Both implementations added two additional service curves, that were NOT in the original paper! A real-time service curve and an upper-limit service curve. Again, please note that the original paper mentions two scheduling algorithms (real-time and link-share), but in that paper both work with one single service curve. There never have been two independent service curves for either one as you currently find in BSD and Linux. Even worse, some version of ALTQ seems to add an additional queue priority to HSFC (there is no such thing as priority in the original paper either). I found several BSD HowTo's mentioning this priority setting (even though the man page of the latest ALTQ release knows no such parameter for HSFC, so officially it does not even exist). This all makes the HFSC scheduling even more complex than the algorithm described in the original paper and there are tons of tutorials on the Internet that often contradict each other, one claiming the opposite of the other one. This is probably the main reason why nobody really seems to understand how HFSC scheduling really works. Before I can ask my questions, we need a sample setup of some kind. I'll use a very simple one as seen in the image below: Here are some questions I cannot answer because the tutorials contradict each other: What for do I need a real-time curve at all? Assuming A1, A2, B1, B2 are all 128 kbit/s link-share (no real-time curve for either one), then each of those will get 128 kbit/s if the root has 512 kbit/s to distribute (and A and B are both 256 kbit/s of course), right? Why would I additionally give A1 and B1 a real-time curve with 128 kbit/s? What would this be good for? To give those two a higher priority? According to original paper I can give them a higher priority by using a curve, that's what HFSC is all about after all. By giving both classes a curve of [256kbit/s 20ms 128kbit/s] both have twice the priority than A2 and B2 automatically (still only getting 128 kbit/s on average) Does the real-time bandwidth count towards the link-share bandwidth? E.g. if A1 and B1 both only have 64kbit/s real-time and 64kbit/s link-share bandwidth, does that mean once they are served 64kbit/s via real-time, their link-share requirement is satisfied as well (they might get excess bandwidth, but lets ignore that for a second) or does that mean they get another 64 kbit/s via link-share? So does each class has a bandwidth "requirement" of real-time plus link-share? Or does a class only have a higher requirement than the real-time curve if the link-share curve is higher than the real-time curve (current link-share requirement equals specified link-share requirement minus real-time bandwidth already provided to this class)? Is upper limit curve applied to real-time as well, only to link-share, or maybe to both? Some tutorials say one way, some say the other way. Some even claim upper-limit is the maximum for real-time bandwidth + link-share bandwidth? What is the truth? Assuming A2 and B2 are both 128 kbit/s, does it make any difference if A1 and B1 are 128 kbit/s link-share only, or 64 kbit/s real-time and 128 kbit/s link-share, and if so, what difference? If I use the seperate real-time curve to increase priorities of classes, why would I need "curves" at all? Why is not real-time a flat value and link-share also a flat value? Why are both curves? The need for curves is clear in the original paper, because there is only one attribute of that kind per class. But now, having three attributes (real-time, link-share, and upper-limit) what for do I still need curves on each one? Why would I want the curves shape (not average bandwidth, but their slopes) to be different for real-time and link-share traffic? According to the little documentation available, real-time curve values are totally ignored for inner classes (class A and B), they are only applied to leaf classes (A1, A2, B1, B2). If that is true, why does the ALTQ HFSC sample configuration (search for 3.3 Sample configuration) set real-time curves on inner classes and claims that those set the guaranteed rate of those inner classes? Isn't that completely pointless? (note: pshare sets the link-share curve in ALTQ and grate the real-time curve; you can see this in the paragraph above the sample configuration). Some tutorials say the sum of all real-time curves may not be higher than 80% of the line speed, others say it must not be higher than 70% of the line speed. Which one is right or are they maybe both wrong? One tutorial said you shall forget all the theory. No matter how things really work (schedulers and bandwidth distribution), imagine the three curves according to the following "simplified mind model": real-time is the guaranteed bandwidth that this class will always get. link-share is the bandwidth that this class wants to become fully satisfied, but satisfaction cannot be guaranteed. In case there is excess bandwidth, the class might even get offered more bandwidth than necessary to become satisfied, but it may never use more than upper-limit says. For all this to work, the sum of all real-time bandwidths may not be above xx% of the line speed (see question above, the percentage varies). Question: Is this more or less accurate or a total misunderstanding of HSFC? And if assumption above is really accurate, where is prioritization in that model? E.g. every class might have a real-time bandwidth (guaranteed), a link-share bandwidth (not guaranteed) and an maybe an upper-limit, but still some classes have higher priority needs than other classes. In that case I must still prioritize somehow, even among real-time traffic of those classes. Would I prioritize by the slope of the curves? And if so, which curve? The real-time curve? The link-share curve? The upper-limit curve? All of them? Would I give all of them the same slope or each a different one and how to find out the right slope? I still haven't lost hope that there exists at least a hand full of people in this world that really understood HFSC and are able to answer all these questions accurately. And doing so without contradicting each other in the answers would be really nice ;-)

  Read the article

• WiX 3 Tutorial: Custom EULA License and MSI localization

  - by Mladen Prajdic

  In this part of the ongoing Wix tutorial series we’ll take a look at how to localize your MSI into different languages. We’re still the mighty SuperForm: Program that takes care of all your label color needs. :) Localizing the MSI With WiX 3.0 localizing an MSI is pretty much a simple and straightforward process. First let look at the WiX project Properties->Build. There you can see "Cultures to build" textbox. Put specific cultures to build into the testbox or leave it empty to build all of them. Cultures have to be in correct culture format like en-US, en-GB or de-DE. Next we have to tell WiX which cultures we actually have in our project. Take a look at the first post in the series about Solution/Project structure and look at the Lang directory in the project structure picture. There we have de-de and en-us subfolders each with its own localized stuff. In the subfolders pay attention to the WXL files Loc_de-de.wxl and Loc_en-us.wxl. Each one has a <String Id="LANG"> under the WixLocalization root node. By including the string with id LANG we tell WiX we want that culture built. For English we have <String Id="LANG">1033</String>, for German <String Id="LANG">1031</String> in Loc_de-de.wxl and for French we’d have to create another file Loc_fr-FR.wxl and put <String Id="LANG">1036</String>. WXL files are localization files. Any string we want to localize we have to put in there. To reference it we use loc keyword like this: !(loc.IdOfTheVariable) => !(loc.MustCloseSuperForm) This is our Loc_en-us.wxl. Note that German wxl has an identical structure but values are in German. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><WixLocalization Culture="en-us" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/wix/2006/localization" Codepage="1252"> <String Id="LANG">1033</String> <String Id="ProductName">SuperForm</String> <String Id="LicenseRtf" Overridable="yes">\Lang\en-us\EULA_en-us.rtf</String> <String Id="ManufacturerName">My Company Name</String> <String Id="AppNotSupported">This application is is not supported on your current OS. Minimal OS supported is Windows XP SP2</String> <String Id="DotNetFrameworkNeeded">.NET Framework 3.5 is required. Please install the .NET Framework then run this installer again.</String> <String Id="MustCloseSuperForm">Must close SuperForm!</String> <String Id="SuperFormNewerVersionInstalled">A newer version of !(loc.ProductName) is already installed.</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialog_Title">!(loc.ProductName) setup</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_Title">!(loc.ProductName) Product check</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_Description">Plese Enter following information to perform the licence check.</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_FullName">Full Name:</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_Organization">Organization:</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_ProductKey">Product Key:</String> <String Id="ProductKeyCheckDialogControls_InvalidProductKey">The product key you entered is invalid. Please call user support.</String> </WixLocalization>   As you can see from the file we can use localization variables in other variables like we do for SuperFormNewerVersionInstalled string. ProductKeyCheckDialog* strings are to localize a custom dialog for Product key check which we’ll look at in the next post. Built in dialog text localization Under the de-de folder there’s also the WixUI_de-de.wxl file. This files contains German translations of all texts that are in WiX built in dialogs. It can be downloaded from WiX 3.0.5419.0 Source Forge site. Download the wix3-sources.zip and go to \src\ext\UIExtension\wixlib. There you’ll find already translated all WiX texts in 12 Languages. Localizing the custom EULA license Here it gets ugly. We can override the default EULA license easily by overriding WixUILicenseRtf WiX variable like this: <WixVariable Id="WixUILicenseRtf" Value="License.rtf" /> where License.rtf is the name of your custom EULA license file. The downside of this method is that you can only have one license file which means no localization for it. That’s why we need to make a workaround. License is checked on a dialog name LicenseAgreementDialog. What we have to do is overwrite that dialog and insert the functionality for localization. This is a code for LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten.wxs, an overwritten LicenseAgreementDialog that supports localization. LicenseAcceptedOverwritten replaces the LicenseAccepted built in variable. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><Wix xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/wix/2006/wi"> <Fragment> <UI> <Dialog Id="LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten" Width="370" Height="270" Title="!(loc.LicenseAgreementDlg_Title)"> <Control Id="LicenseAcceptedOverwrittenCheckBox" Type="CheckBox" X="20" Y="207" Width="330" Height="18" CheckBoxValue="1" Property="LicenseAcceptedOverwritten" Text="!(loc.LicenseAgreementDlgLicenseAcceptedCheckBox)" /> <Control Id="Back" Type="PushButton" X="180" Y="243" Width="56" Height="17" Text="!(loc.WixUIBack)" /> <Control Id="Next" Type="PushButton" X="236" Y="243" Width="56" Height="17" Default="yes" Text="!(loc.WixUINext)"> <Publish Event="SpawnWaitDialog" Value="WaitForCostingDlg">CostingComplete = 1</Publish> <Condition Action="disable"> <![CDATA[ LicenseAcceptedOverwritten <> "1" ]]> </Condition> <Condition Action="enable">LicenseAcceptedOverwritten = "1"</Condition> </Control> <Control Id="Cancel" Type="PushButton" X="304" Y="243" Width="56" Height="17" Cancel="yes" Text="!(loc.WixUICancel)"> <Publish Event="SpawnDialog" Value="CancelDlg">1</Publish> </Control> <Control Id="BannerBitmap" Type="Bitmap" X="0" Y="0" Width="370" Height="44" TabSkip="no" Text="!(loc.LicenseAgreementDlgBannerBitmap)" /> <Control Id="LicenseText" Type="ScrollableText" X="20" Y="60" Width="330" Height="140" Sunken="yes" TabSkip="no"> <!-- This is original line --> <!--<Text SourceFile="!(wix.WixUILicenseRtf=$(var.LicenseRtf))" />--> <!-- To enable EULA localization we change it to this --> <Text SourceFile="$(var.ProjectDir)\!(loc.LicenseRtf)" /> <!-- In each of localization files (wxl) put line like this: <String Id="LicenseRtf" Overridable="yes">\Lang\en-us\EULA_en-us.rtf</String>--> </Control> <Control Id="Print" Type="PushButton" X="112" Y="243" Width="56" Height="17" Text="!(loc.WixUIPrint)"> <Publish Event="DoAction" Value="WixUIPrintEula">1</Publish> </Control> <Control Id="BannerLine" Type="Line" X="0" Y="44" Width="370" Height="0" /> <Control Id="BottomLine" Type="Line" X="0" Y="234" Width="370" Height="0" /> <Control Id="Description" Type="Text" X="25" Y="23" Width="340" Height="15" Transparent="yes" NoPrefix="yes" Text="!(loc.LicenseAgreementDlgDescription)" /> <Control Id="Title" Type="Text" X="15" Y="6" Width="200" Height="15" Transparent="yes" NoPrefix="yes" Text="!(loc.LicenseAgreementDlgTitle)" /> </Dialog> </UI> </Fragment></Wix>   Look at the Control with Id "LicenseText” and read the comments. We’ve changed the original license text source to "$(var.ProjectDir)\!(loc.LicenseRtf)". var.ProjectDir is the directory of the project file. The !(loc.LicenseRtf) is where the magic happens. Scroll up and take a look at the wxl localization file example. We have the LicenseRtf declared there and it’s been made overridable so developers can change it if they want. The value of the LicenseRtf is the path to our localized EULA relative to the WiX project directory. With little hacking we’ve achieved a fully localizable installer package.   The final step is to insert the extended LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten license dialog into the installer GUI chain. This is how it’s done under the <UI> node of course.   <UI> <!-- code to be discussed in later posts –> <!-- BEGIN UI LOGIC FOR CLEAN INSTALLER --> <Publish Dialog="WelcomeDlg" Control="Next" Event="NewDialog" Value="LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten">1</Publish> <Publish Dialog="LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten" Control="Back" Event="NewDialog" Value="WelcomeDlg">1</Publish> <Publish Dialog="LicenseAgreementDialogOverwritten" Control="Next" Event="NewDialog" Value="ProductKeyCheckDialog">LicenseAcceptedOverwritten = "1" AND NOT OLDER_VERSION_FOUND</Publish> <Publish Dialog="InstallDirDlg" Control="Back" Event="NewDialog" Value="ProductKeyCheckDialog">1</Publish> <!-- END UI LOGIC FOR CLEAN INSTALLER –> <!-- code to be discussed in later posts --></UI> For a thing that should be simple for the end developer to do, localization can be a bit advanced for the novice WiXer. Hope this post makes the journey easier and that next versions of WiX improve this process. WiX 3 tutorial by Mladen Prajdic navigation WiX 3 Tutorial: Solution/Project structure and Dev resources WiX 3 Tutorial: Understanding main wxs and wxi file WiX 3 Tutorial: Generating file/directory fragments with Heat.exe  WiX 3 Tutorial: Custom EULA License and MSI localization WiX 3 Tutorial: Product Key Check custom action WiX 3 Tutorial: Building an updater WiX 3 Tutorial: Icons and installer pictures WiX 3 Tutorial: Creating a Bootstrapper

  Read the article

• SPARC64 VII+ Processor Core License Factor Reduced by 33%

  - by john.shell

  The Oracle processor core license factor has been a popular topic the last few months.  For those partners new to Oracle software licensing, the processor core license factor determines the number licensed CPUs that are required when running Oracle software (those charged on a per-CPU basis) on multi-core processors.My last entry talked about the core factor reduction for our T3 processor.  The core license factor for our newly announced SPARC64 VII+ processor is 0.5, which is a 33% reduction from the 0.75 rate used with our SPARC64 VI and VII processors.What does this mean for our partners?  Increased opportunity.  This change, similar to our T3-based systems, means that our hardware is the preferred platform for Oracle software. Still a little dizzy on the breadth of Oracle's software offering?  Do a simple scan of Oracle's software price lists. Consider this your target market.This change allows you to focus on total solution price or price/performance, not server prices or per core performance (a standard IBM sales tactic). That's the offensive side of the game.  Don't forget your defense.  One of the biggest customer benefits around the M-Series is investment protection.  The combination of a simple processor/board upgrade, along with a reduction in processor core license factor, makes upgrading one of the best financial moves for our customers.    One reminder.  The update to the processor core license factor only applies to the new VII+ processor - NOT the SPARC64 VI or VII processors.  You can find the official table here.

  Read the article

• Is there an open source license for this?

  - by Philip

  I have written code at home, on my own time and using my own knowledge and equipment, while under no contract or NDA. I want to make this code open source so that I can use it in software I write for an employer, without denying myself the right to use it at home or elsewhere later. I'm not sure if saying it is in the "public domain" would fit this purpose, or if I need to find an open source license. I want anyone to be able to use the code in closed source proprietary software with zero requirements for including a license with the source or binary. And I want to minimize the risk of anyone being sued for using it. (I'm aware that one can never be 100% safe from being sued.) Is there an open source license that fits this purpose? To what extent is what I want to do even possible? I wouldn't mind putting the license in comments in the code files themselves, but that obviously doesn't go with the binary.

  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

• Proprietary software based on MIT license.

  - by Kevin_Jim

  As far as I understand. I can use a project licensed under MIT license into a proprietary software. Am I right? It dosen't force any copyleft and I don't have to say that my project is based on something else. That means I can fork the hell out of it, right? Can someone shed some light over this?

  Read the article

• GPL license and eiffel studio

  - by Michael Jenneson

  On https://www2.eiffel.com/download/download_info.aspx?id=eiffelstudio&info=false&mirrors=eiffelstudio you can download the IDE "eiffelstudio". They have GPL as their license but they also specify that "The GPL version is for the purpose of developing open-source software only! If you want to evaluate EiffelStudio for commercial software development, please download our Enterprise Evaluation Edition." However as far as i know this is directly against the gpl. Can they really specify such restrictions while adhering to the GPL?

  Read the article

• how important to register(license) your own components?

  - by XBasic3000

  i am new to component building, and i had notice to other components has a a comment on top of there units like agreement, terms and condition etc. wither its free or commercial. How important is to register(license) your own component and how/where? and when do you need to register it? how about the freeware? must have a licese too?

  Read the article

• GPL license procedure product

  - by Jada

  Hi, We have a product(client-server) which we want to release under GPL. What is the procedure that needs to be followed? We also have a EULA text, what needs to be added there? Just adding the GPL license to each sourcecode file is sufficient, is it? Please advise. Regards -Jad

  Read the article

• Bordeaux 2.0.4 for FreeBSD and PC-BSD Released

  <b>wine-Reviews:</b> "The Bordeaux Technology Group released Bordeaux 2.0.4 for FreeBSD and PC-BSD today. Bordeaux 2.0.4 is a maintenance release that fixes a number of small bugs."

  Read the article

• Microsoft Office tracking license marks/keys in saved files (doc/docx/xls etc.)?

  - by pawel159

  Does Microsoft Office use any marks/keys in saved files, that can track the computer and software license using which file was saved? E.g.: I use Office at work and save files on pendrive. When I'm home I recall to check something and introduce little modifications. I'd save this file using MS Office Home and Student license, but at work I will be redistributing this file and it should look as it was saved at work, with company's license (not my private). Will saving it at work once again wipe license marks from home (if any exist)?

  Read the article

• How can I transfer a SQL Server 2005 license?

  - by jdk

  I have the a wrong license number in one SQL Server. What's gone down is this: We virtualized a physical server, effectively cloning its software and licenses - SQL Server included. We want to repurpose the physical machine by keeping SQL Server and modifying its license to another license key that we have purchased. Would prefer not to reinstall SQL Server. Can it be done?

  Read the article

• Incorporating GPL Code in my Open Source Project

  - by rutherford

  I have downloaded a currently inactive GPL project with a view to updating it and releasing the completed codebase as open source. I'm not really a fan of GPL though and would rather licence my project under BSD. What are my options? Is it just a case of keeping any existing non-touched code under the GPL and any updated stuff can be BSD (messy)? The source will essentially be the same codebase i.e. there is no logical separation between the two and they certainly can't be split into anything resembling different libraries. Are my only realistic options to either GPL the whole thing or seek the original author's permission to release everthing under BSD?

  Read the article

• Handling optional GPL dependencies

  - by pmr

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

  Read the article

• Lightweight Linux distro that includes developer tools? (or, the most BSD-like Linux)

  - by RevAaron

  I cut my teeth on Minix and Slackware 1.1, but I've been in the OS X Wilderness for the last few years. I'm trying to standardize on a Linux distribution for personal and work-related use on less powerful laptops and under virtualization. So far, NetBSD and OpenBSD are the best fit for my purposes- but after plenty of frustration I've come to the conclusion that I need to stick with Linux to get the hardware and software support that comes with it. What I like about NetBSD/OpenBSD that I'd like to keep: X, but no default KDE, GNOME or XFCE! A sensible /etc and dot file setup- startx calls xinit, xinit looks for ~/.xinitrc; nothing more complicated than that is needed. Command line tools and file-based configuration: I shouldn't need a GUI to connect to a WAP. Decent selection of binary packages; building from source is OK, but nothing source-only like Gentoo. pkg_add (BSD) and apt-get both have treated me well in the past. Modest RAM and HDD requirements: boot + X + awesome+ two xterms takes up 80 MB on OpenBSD and 240 MB on Debian 5 and Crunchbang In my experience, most "lightweight" and Live CDs focus on a nice desktop environment crammed into a CD or USB stick; once you add build-essentials you end up with something just about as bloated as Ubuntu or Debian full install. Crunchbang is a great example. Thanks in advance for all suggestions!

  Read the article

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