Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/42 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Softrware Licensing / Registration component/framework?

    - by Clay Nichols
    We use a home-grown Registration System for our software but I'd like to update it fixing a number of things including adding the ability to remotely activate/deactivate it (to facilitate Saas). Feel free to suggest any good (in your opinion) VB6- compatible option. I can check out whether it meets our other criteria below. Required Features: Activate multiple programs (Ok if it generates a separate code for each one) Works with VB6 and VB.net. A VB6-compatible DLL should be fine. Still supported (nice to have but not absolutely required Compatible with Windows 2000 through 7. Nice-to-have features (but not required) * Work without internet access * Works through a firewall (this may be a tough one) Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Please summarize how to implement node base licensing

    - by user294896
    Currently a user makes a purchase and then a license is generated and sent to that user, but the license isn't tied to a physical computer so there is nothing to prevent the user sharing the license with someone. I heard people talk about creating a license tied to the mac address of the computer, so the license only works on that computer. Now I know how to get the mac address in code but I dont understand how I can do this step when they first make the purchase on the web, so please what is the basic algorithm for node locked licenses ?

    Read the article

  • Licensing Scripts

    - by Mr.K
    Hi, I've had my first nightmare client recently who was messing me around with payment for a project. So... I've come to an agreement with another client to use some of the sites scripting to build a site for them. But, now the original client wants their site too. I have made a deal to licence the reused parts of the site (some jQuery scripts and a dynamic flash gallery) rather than me signing over full copyright. However, I haven't got a clue how to do this. Can anyone point me in the right direction to read up on this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the best strategy for licensing a desktop application using a web service, when all I need to know is when people use the product?

    - by user1667022
    Our company's main application is a desktop program that is used at warehouses and written in C# and Windows Presentation Forms. The next thing we want to be able to do is track when customers open up the application and when it is being used. The reason for this is so we can charge them per month, based on if they are/arn't using the application. My boss is having me research different ways to "license" the product under these requirements. Not having any experience doing this, a few things come to mind. I could create a web application that runs on a server, and every time the desktop application is opened and the user logs in, the application connects to the server and marks a database with the DateTime. Or is there licensing software that I can use to accomplish this? Just looking for tips/advice from people who have experience with this type of stuff.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Visual Studio Professional Licensing

    - by ThinkingCap
    Hello, We are a small financial Company (around 20 people) We are planning to buy the Visual Studio Professional 2008 Edition to build some Proprietary software for ourself. We have only 3 developers working on this software. The question is Can we distribute the application(just the exe) throughout the office. What are the restrictions?if any. I went through the documentation provided by MS but its tought for me to digest or I did not get astraight forward answer Any help Appreciated. ,Can you please back your answers by some sort of Proofs(eg.links,docs etc ) from Microsft website? Thanks ThingkingCap

    Read the article

  • Licensing and commercial use

    - by Avoid Trouble
    I found a really cool piece of software under the AGPL license. I haven't heard of this before, so excuse the ignorance... But is it legal for me to simply bundle and use this product directly within my app (no modification) and resell for commercial use? Speaking of which, is there a simple table available that shows the implication of each open source license and whether or not it can be used by closed source, for-profit, $$$ type software?

    Read the article

  • SRs @ Oracle: How do I License Thee?

    - by [email protected]
    With the release of the new Sun Ray product last week comes the advent of a different software licensing model. Where Sun had initially taken the approach of '1 desktop device = one license', we later changed things to be '1 concurrent connection to the server software = one license', and while there were ways to tell how many connections there were at a time, it wasn't the easiest thing to do.  And, when should you measure concurrency?  At your busiest time, of course... but when might that be?  9:00 Monday morning this week might yield a different result than 9:00 Monday morning last week.In the acquisition of this desktop virtualization product suite Oracle has changed things to be, in typical Oracle fashion, simpler.  There are now two choices for customers around licensing: Named User licenses and Per Device licenses.Here's how they work, and some examples:The Rules1) A Sun Ray device, and PC running the Desktop Access Client (DAC), are both considered unique devices.OR, 2) Any user running a session on either a Sun Ray or an DAC is still just one user.So, you have a choice of path to go down.Some Examples:Here are 6 use cases I can think of right now that will help you choose the Oracle server software licensing model that is right for your business:Case 1If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 100 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 100 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Two cases using the same metrics - different licensing models and therefore different results.Case 2If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 200 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 200 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - very different results.Case 3If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 50 user licenses.If I have 100 Sun Rays for 50 users, and 20 of them use DAC at home that is 120 device licenses.Same metrics - but again - very different results.Based on the way your business operates you should be able to see which of the two licensing models is most advantageous to you.Got questions?  I'll try to help.(Thanks to Brad Lackey for the clarifications!)

    Read the article

  • Which Open Source Licenses can address concerns for an Open Source Game Engine?

    - by Chris
    I am on a team that is looking to open source an engine we are building. It's intended as an engine for Online RPG style games. We're writing it to work on both desktops and android platforms. I've been over to the OSI http://opensource.org/licenses/category to check out the most common licenses. However, this will be my first time going into an open source project and I wanted to know if the community had some insight into which licenses might be best suited. Key licensing concerns: Removing or limiting our liability (most already seem to cover this, but stating for completeness). We want other developers to be able to take part or all of our project and use it in their own projects with proper accreditation to our project. Licensing should not hinder someone's ability to quickly use the engine. They should be able to download a release and start using it without needing to wait on licensing issues. Game content (gfx, sound, etc.) that is not part of the engine should be allowed to be licensed separately. If someone is using our engine, they can retain full copy right of their content, including engine generated data. Our primary goal is exposure, which is why we're going open source to start with. Both for the project and for the individuals developing it. Are there any licenses that can require accreditation visible to players? While I'd put our primary goal as exposure, for licensing the accreditation is less of a concern. From what I've read through (and have been able to understand) it doesn't seem like any of the licenses cover anything that is produced by the licensed software. Are there any that state this specifically, or does simply not mentioning it leave it open for other licensing? Are there any other concerns that we should consider? Has anyone had any issues using any of these licenses?

    Read the article

  • Licencing: release the same software with double licence

    - by Luca
    In my free time, I develop (alone, sigh) a project, in particoular an application library. I've released it using GPL v3. At this time, this project has come very useful for a job. I'd like to release my OSS library toghether with the application using the same GPL v3 licence, with the exception that it can be linked for the specific application, or for the specific application vendor. AFAIK, the copyright owner can handle the entire source and licencing it, I did it; and probably the licence owner could cut&paste its own code, change its licence and use for other projects, isn't? But an GPL'ed library cannot be linked with a proprietary software, right? But software could be double-licenced, as MySQL does. So the question is: what should I do to allow the distribution of my GPL'ed library with a proprietary software, being the copyright owner?

    Read the article

  • SharePoint 2013 Licensing Simplified

    - by Sahil Malik
    SharePoint 2010 Training: more information Before I begin, let me preface this by saying, I don't work for Microsoft, I don't sell SharePoint, this is merely my understanding of the SharePoint 2013 licensing model. As always, before making any money decisions based on the below, talk to your Microsoft rep. The below is just my understanding, you are responsible for any decision you may take. With that aside, here is how I understand SharePoint 2013 licensing. Note that everything below is for on-prem SharePoint only. Also it goes without saying that you need to purchase windows server and SQL server licenses etc. on top of what you read below. The Basics. You need to buy two things - the SharePoint server, and CALs. SharePoint server comes in SharePoint foundation, standard and enterprise. CALs can be either enterprise or standard, and they can be bought as CALs for SharePoint or a CAL suite which includes exchange and lync. CALs can also be purchased and user CAL or device CAL. Read full article ....

    Read the article

  • Server Systems for SQL Server 2012 per core licensing

    - by jchang
    Until recently, the SQL Server Enterprise Edition per processor (socket) licensing model resulted in only 2 or 3 server system configurations being the preferred choice. Determine the number of sockets: 2, 4 or 8. Then select the processor with the most compute capability at that socket count level. Finally, fill the DIMM sockets with the largest capacity ECC memory module at reasonable cost per GB. Currently this is the 16GB DIMM with a price of $365 on the Dell website, and $240 from Crucial. The...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Microsoft To Discontinue 'Select' Licensing

    Microsoft will no longer sell its Select software licensing after July 1, 2011, with Select Plus taking its place....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Development/runtime Licensing mechanism for a C# class library?

    - by Darryl
    I'm developing a .Net class library (a data provider) and I'm starting to think about how I would handle licensing the library to prospective purchasers. By licensing, I mean the mechanics of trying to prevent my library from being used by those who haven't purchased it, not the software license (i.e., Apache, Gnu, etc). I've never dealt with licensing, and in the past, I've always developed apps, not libraries. I don't want to make things difficult for my customers; know it is not possible to make it ironclad. Just some mechanism that gives me decent protection without making the customer jump through hoops or gnash their teeth. I think the mechanism would check for a valid license when the class is being used in development mode, and not in runtime mode (when the customer's software is released to their customers). I think libraries are typically sold per developer, but I'm not sure how that could be accomplished without making the mechanism odious for my customers; maybe that gets left to the honor system. I Googled this and found many approaches. Ideally, I'd like to do something that is generally accepted and common, the "right" way class libraries are licensed, if that exists, rather than making my customers deal with yet another license mechanism. A firm push in the right direction will be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Can I re-license Academic Free License code under 2-Clause BSD / ITC?

    - by Stefano Palazzo
    I want to fork a piece of code licensed under the Academic Free License. For the project, it would be preferable to re-license it under the ISC License or the 2-Clause BSD license, which are equivalent. I understand that the AFL grants me things such as limitation of liability, but licensing consistency is much more important to the project, especially since we're talking about just 800 lines of code, a quarter of which I've modified in some way. And it's very important for me to give these changes back to the community, given the fact that this is software relevant to security - I need the public scrutiny that I'll get by creating a public fork. In short: At the top of the file I want to say this, or something like it: # Licensed under the Academic Free License, version 3 # Copyright (C) 2009 Original Author # Licensed under the ISC License # Copyright (C) 2012 Stefano Palazzo # Copyright (C) 2012 Company Am I allowed to do this? My research so far indicates that it's not clear whether the AFL is GPL-Compatible, and I can't really understand any of the stuff concerning re-licensing to other permissive licenses. As a stop gap, I would also be okay with re-licensing under the GPL, however: I can find no consensus (though I can find disagreement) on whether this is allowed at all, and I don't want to risk it, of course. Wikipedia: ISC License Wikipedia: Academic Free License

    Read the article

  • How does one escape the GPL?

    - by tehtros
    DISCLAIMER I don't pretend to know anything about licensing. In fact, everything I say below may be completely false! Backstory: Recently, I've been looking for a decent game engine, and I think I've found one that I really like, Cafu Engine. However, they have a dual licensing plan, where everything you make with the engine is forced under GPL, unless you pay for a commercial license. I'm not saying that it's a bad engine, they even say that they are very relaxed about the licensing fees. However, the fact that it even involves the GPL scares me. So my question is basicly, how does one escape the GPL. Here's an example: The id Tech engine, also known as the Quake engine, or the Doom engine, was the base for the popular Source engine. However, the id Tech engine has been released under the GPL, and the Source engine is proprietary. Did Valve get a different license? Or did they do something to escape the GPL? Is there a way to escape the GPL? Or, if you use GPL'd source code as a base for another project, are you forced to use the GPL, and make your source code available to the world. Could some random person take the id Tech engine, modify it past the point of recognition, then use it as a proprietary engine for commercial products? Or are they required to make it open source. One last thing, I generally have no problem what-so-ever with open source. However I feel that open source has it's place, but that is not in the bushiness world.

    Read the article

  • Help me choose an Open-Source license

    - by Spartan-117A
    So I've done lots of open-source work. I have released many projects, most of which have fallen under GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensing. Now I have a new project (an implementation library), and I can't find a license that meets my needs (although I believe one may exist, hence this question). This is the list of things I'm looking for in the license. Appropriate credit given for ALL usage or derivative works. No warranty expressed or implied. The library may be freely used in ANY other open-source/free-software product (regardless of license, GPL, BSD, EPL, etc). The library may be used in closed-source/commercial products ONLY WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION. GPL - Useless to me, obviously, as it completely precludes any and all closed-source use, violating requirement (4). BSD/LGPL/MIT - Won't work, because they wouldn't require closed-source developers to get my permission, violating requirement (4). If it wasn't for that, BSD (FreeBSD in particular) would look like a good choice here. EPL/MPL - Won't work either, as the code couldn't be combined with GPL-code, therefore violating requirement (3). Also I'm pretty sure they allow commercial works without asking permission, so they don't meet (4) either. Dual-licensing is an option, but in that case, what combination would hold to all four requirements? Basically, I want BSD minus the commercial use, plus an option to use in commercial/closed-source as long as the developer has my written permission. EDIT: At the moment, thinking something like multiple-licensing under GPL/LGPL plus something else for commercial?

    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

  • Any Microsoft SQL Server 2008 licensing restrictions on usage?

    - by ryrobes
    Does Microsoft have any problems with HOW I USE SQL Server Standard Edition 2008? I plan on using it to aggregate my clients various data sources and report on them (using the whole stack - SSIS, DB, Analysis Services and Reporting Services) via the web. I don't want to run into any issues with being accused of "re-selling" services / features when I'm not allowed to, etc. In essence, I'm charging people to build them solutions based on / using MY licensed copy and then giving them access to the final products. (reports, etc) It seems straightforward enough - but who knows with MS... (BTW, Licensed by processor / not CAL)

    Read the article

  • What criteria would I use SQL Stream Insight vs TPL Dataflow [closed]

    - by makerofthings7
    There is an add-in to the Task Parallel Library (TPL) called TPL Dataflow that allows a variety of data processing scenarios. It seems that there are some parallels to the SQL Stream Insight product, however since SQL's Stream Insight has some interesting licensing around it, and it has a better performance depending on what license I get... I found myself asking myself should I use TPL Dataflow and not have any licensing issues, and possibly better performance. Can anyone tell me if performance is a valid criteria for comparing SQL Stream Insight vs TPL Dataflow? What other criteria should I be looking at when comparing the two?

    Read the article

  • Are there any changes in the licensing of Visual Studio 2013 Express editions?

    - by Ramón García-Pérez
    As was going through reading the license.htm file provided as part of the VS2013_RTM_WebExp_ENU.iso offline installation media for the Visual Studio 2013 Express for Web, section 6 reads as follows: 6. PACKAGE MANAGER AND THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE INSTALLATION FEATURES. The software includes the following features (each a “Feature”), each of which enables you to obtain software applications or packages through the Internet from other sources: Extension Manager, New Project Dialog, Web Platform Installer, and Microsoft NuGet-Based Package Manager. Those software applications and packages are offered and distributed in some cases by third parties and in some cases by Microsoft, but each such application or package is under its own license terms. Microsoft is not developing, distributing or licensing any of the third-party applications or packages to you, but instead, as a convenience, enables you to use the Features to access or obtain those applications or packages directly from the third-party application or package providers. By using the Features, you acknowledge and agree that: you are obtaining the applications or packages from such third parties and under separate license terms applicable to each application or package (including, with respect to the package-manager Features, any terms applicable to software dependencies that may be included in the package); MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES AS TO THE FEED OR GALLERY URL, ANY FEEDS OR GALLERIES FROM SUCH URL, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, OR ANY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS OR PACKAGES REFERENCED IN OR ACCESSED BY YOU THROUGH SUCH FEEDS OR GALLERIES. MICROSOFT GRANTS YOU NO LICENSE RIGHTS FOR THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS OR PACKAGES THAT ARE OBTAINED USING THE FEATURES. Are there any changes in the licensing of Visual Studio 2013 Express editions? If so, does this means that Visual Studio extensions installation in Express Editions is now allowed? PS: Previous versions of the Express editions did not allow the installation of extensions as per "EULA/TOS" discussed here: Limitations of Visual Studio 2012 Express Desktop

    Read the article

  • What constitutes a programming language and how does one copyright a programming language?

    - by Yannbane
    I've decided to create a programming language of my own, mostly just for fun. However, I got interested in the legal aspect of it all. You can, for example, licence specific programs under specific terms. However, how do you go about licensing a language? Also, by that I don't just mean the implementation of the language (compiler & VM), but the standard itself. Is there something else to a programming language I'm missing? What I would like to achieve by such licensing: Make it completely FOSS (can a language even be FOSS, or is that the implementation that can be FOSS?) Establish myself as the author (can you legally be an author of a language? Or, again, just the implementation?) Make it so that anyone implementing my language would be required to attribute me (MIT-style. Please note that I do not have any hopes for anyone actually ever doing that though, I'm just learning.) I think that the solution would be to separately license the VM and the compiler for my language, as "the official implementation", and then license the design document as the language itself. What exactly am I missing here?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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