What has been the experience of folks who have already been using OpenDJ and OpenAM? Older versions seem free to use but the new releases don't seem to be free for use. How do they compare to the existing commercial offerings? They look like a better option than using OpenLDAP with CAS but don't look free.
Below you can find answers depending on when this question was asked just for the sake of history.
ANSWER AFTER April 3rd, 2017
With the recent changes made to the business model here you can find the key details you will need to know:
The latest versions of the main products have been firstly renamed, but secondly has been re-versioned to match ForgeRock's Identity Platform views:
OpenAM 14.0.0 -> Access Manager 5.0.0
OpenDJ 4.0.0 -> Directory Services 5.0.0
OpenIDM 5.0.0 -> Identity Management 5.0.0
OpenIG 5.0.0 -> Identity Gateway 5.0.0
The products listed above were all released under a commercial licence, meaning:
The ForgeRock contributed source code (i.e. ForgeRock's intellectual property) is not licensed under an open source licence.
All source code that does not solely belong to ForgeRock (e.g. original source code that belonged to Sun, or source that had open source contributor's work associated with them) will be still available under the CDDL licence and can be obtained as detailed under forgerock.org.
All ForgeRock IP is licensed under a non open source licence.
The products released under the commercial licence can be evaluated for 60 days only.
At the same time of the official release of the new products, community editions have been released for the Open* products:
The community editions are essentially the latest maintenance releases of the last EOL'd versions of the products.
Since these are maintenance releases, they are meant to be firstly more stable, but secondly slightly more secure (only slightly since these versions have not been updated to include the security fixes that have been issued since these versions' original release date).
The community editions can be found under forgerock.github.io
With these new releases every community member will have to make a decision themselves: do they want to go for the latest, but EOL'd stable version of the product, or do they want to try their luck with the latest public, but likely to be less mature software versions (like OpenAM 13.0.0 that was released before the business model change).
Whether community versions will be released/updated by ForgeRock in the upcoming years is currently unknown, no such information has been publicly provided.
Short of an official announcement from ForgeRock, please have a look at this topic in the ForgeRock forum for more details.
To summarize:
The Open* products are still open source and freely available, however they are no longer being publicly developed by ForgeRock. Whether new community versions will be made available is yet unknown, but given the current example, each year the community would get access to an EOL'd version of the product..
ANSWER BEFORE April 3rd, 2017
Here are some facts about the projects and the licensing in general:
Only major releases are made publicly available, which means the source code is available in the format of an SVN tag, whilst the binary that can be downloaded from BackStage will have the binary license on it.
The binary license allows people to test out the product, but it prevents them from using those binaries in production environments without support subscription.
Maintenance versions are not available publicly neither in source nor in binary format.
Each project's trunk (or master) is publicly available, which means that in one shape or form every single bugfix is available, so with some luck it should be possible to cherry-pick important fixes from trunk onto your own special maintenance version.
Each product is relatively simple to build (except maybe the web agents), and as such it shouldn't pose much of a risk to your deployment (ForgeRock does have customers who are building their own artifacts for their deployments, so it is really not a rocket science).
Downloading the artifacts from BackStage only requires some skills on working with agent protected applications, here is an example curl command:
$ curl -O -H "Cookie: fr_sso_sess_prod=AQIC5w..." https://backstage.forgerock.com/downloads/enterprise/openam/openam12/12.0.0/OpenAM-12.0.0.war
Unfortunately it is common that the major releases have some annoying bugs, for those, backporting is relatively simple, since the difference between trunk and the latest major release shouldn't be too big, so you should be able to handle those by manually backporting the fixes. Since major releases happen every ~year or so, you don't have to live with these local changes for too long fortunately.
The projects have active community, and getting help with any kind of issues shouldn't be too difficult (let it be a deployment issue or how to build the projects locally)
Probably I should mention that I'm a ForgeRock employee, so take my comments as you please.
Just to clarify: when you build trunk on your own, you do not have to buy subscription. Only ForgeRock enterprise builds should include the binary license. When building your own stuff, it is you who creates the binaries, hence you can simply decide to leave the binary license out of it.
I'll answer your question in two parts:
First as it compares to existing commercial it's actually a very good solution, as it scales, and it's very feature rich. You can go to the site and read all about the features.
The second part of newer version requiring subscription is somewhat wrong. Mainly because there are subscription downloads from forgerock.com. I assume this are for support service contract reasons that one must purchace. If you want to run the latest version just download the nightly builds forgerock.org, and you will be running the latest version. Lastly I will echo Ludovic's comments about the confusion of free.
[Community] - https://forgerock.org/
[Commercial Support] - https://forgerock.com/
PS. I'm in no way associated with forgerock.
I think you are confusing free as in Free beer and the freedom of open source.
This said OpenAM and OpenDJ are enterprise ready products, mature and used in a large number of mission critical environments including governments, telecom operators, financial institutions, insurances...
Related
I was tasked with making a change to an old application that makes use of DevExpress. I made the changes, and the application runs as expected, but an informational screen pops up on the screen when launching the application. I can just click 'x' to get rid of the screen, but I do not want end users to have to close this screen every time they launch the application. Does anyone have any insights regarding how to make this not show up? For example, is there a config setting I can add to make this not display?
I am also wondering if the information screen is showing up because I only have a trial version of DevExpress. We have not worked on the application for many years, and none of the developers that have worked on it have an active DevExpress license.
You literally answered your own question. You cannot build a production version of a program with the DevExpress trial. Furthermore, their EULA forbids you from even using a trial to build/develop applications outside of simple evaluation purposes. Per their EULA:
You MAY NOT CREATE applications or begin software projects using the
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT(S) under the terms of the THIRTY (30) DAY
EVALUATION (TRIAL) USE LICENSE.
You MAY NOT REDISTRIBUTE files in the SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT(S)
distribution if using an evaluation or trial version of the SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT(S).
How did you get a copy of a 10+ year old trial installer? DevExpress does not offer outdated trial versions. There is no configuration setting you can change to prevent this screen from popping up. You need to have a license.licx file compiled into the application with a valid license.
If you purchase a license you will have access to previous versions, so you can buy the latest version and install the licensed 9.3.3.0 copy to compile your program without the trial box. You will need to purchase a license for every developer that works on this application.
It says right there: you're using trial version, buy the license.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone have a recommendation for an open-source or paid (either packaged or SaaS) solution for integrating collaborative development features into your own website? Here's more details:
We currently host an online plugin gallery for our product. Users can upload and download plugins. But users can't easily collaborate on a plugin's development, can't easily report and track bugs on a plugin, can't easily track a plugin's versions or roadmap, etc.
Of course, contributors can host their plugin development on github, sourceforge, google code, codeplex, etc. But keeping users on our website has some advantages. For example:
We can use single-sign-on to avoid yet another username/password required
we can integrate end-user issue tracking into our existing online issue-tracking systems
we can get integrated analytics so we can better meet the needs of top contributors as well as downloaders
We can easily reward reputation points to committers just like we do for people who answer lots of questions
Anyone know a good solution for white-label sites for open-source project developer collaboration?
Atlassian Studio might be what you're after:
Subversion - Source Control
JIRA -Issue tracking
FishEye - Source Code Search
Confluence - Enterprise Wiki
Greenhopper - Agile Planning
Bamboo - Continuous Integration
Crucible - Peer Code Review
All hosted in the cloud, prices start at $125 for 5 developers.
http://www.atlassian.com/hosted/studio/
Alternatively for a cheaper alternative, Atlassian offer open source licenses which would allow you to use each of the above for free, however you'd need to host them yourself, and configure them to talk to each other manually (whereas Studio is a hosted SaaS environment with interoperability already configured out of the box).
If you don't qualify for an Open Source license, and you've got 10 developers or less, you can get a Starter License for every product except Crucible for $10 - full commercial license, with support etc.
(This isn't meant to be an ad for Atlassian, and I don't have any connection with them, I just love their products for this kind of solution).
My recommendation would be RedMine or Trac; Trac would require you to set up a separate instance for each project (TracForge can, I believe, help with that). Another option would be Gitorious (I believe its code is all open-source).
There's also GForge, but I wouldn't recommend it (its UI is like old-school SourceForge; I find that rather clunky).
Since you mentioned GitHub and SourceForge:
GitHub:FI is a white-label version of GitHub
SourceForge used to be available as a white-label version at some point, I have no idea whether that is still true though (Hmm, it seems it is called CollabNet TeamForge now)
before that, SourceForge actually was Open Source up until version 3, and there exist multiple forks of the original software:
Savane, a fork started by the GNU project, the software powering GNU Savannah and Gna!
GForge, a fork started by one of the SourceForge developers, the software powering Alioth (until recently) and RubyForge
FusionForge, a fork of GForge by three of the developers after the parent company took GForge proprietary, the software powering Alioth
Gitorious is an open source competitor to GitHub. Launchpad is going to be released as open source sometime this year, and is also available or sale and/or rent right now, I believe. FogBugz launched Kiln, a Mercurial hosting and code review service.
Can I use mySQL in my commercial windows project? Are there any license issues? Which version should I use?
Surprisingly, since the server is not linked with your application directly, you can distribute the MySQL Community server unmodified or modified, as long as you follow the GPL terms. (in short, if you modify the server, you need to make the modified source available)
The client library is another story, however. If you are distributing your commercial project, you cannot distribute the MySQL client libraries freely along with your software if your software is not GPL-licensed or another OSI-approved open-source license.
This is called the MySQL FOSS license exemption, more can be found out about it here:
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html
You will either need to purchase a license to distribute the mysql client libraries, use another client library (highly unlikely to happen, as there aren't many good libraries that don't wrap the official one) or make your software open-source.
(I am not exactly sure on the legality, but it might be possible to have your customers download the mysql client libraries themselves, but I think it will still constitute 'linking' against a closed source app, therefore still violating the terms. In either case, this is definitely an added hassle for a commercial app.)
It might not be an option for you, but it's worth noting that PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license, and sqlite3 is in public domain. Both are a bit more friendly towards linking with commercial code.
As per their explanation, you can use it for free but you will be obligated to release your commercial windows project under the GPL. To keep your code proprietary, you need a commercial license.
Have you every try to search the official site of MySQL for license information?
-- (update) --
OK, since you are "not confirm", let me summarize in short:
"If you want to use MySQL in your commercial program, you must either make your program GPL (i.e., open source, which apparantly not your choice) or Pay Them For a Commercial License".
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
There seems to be a lot of press regarding the announcement that Intellij is being made available for free as an open source tool. Yet from what I read of the licenses, that's only true if the end product is open source and free. If you plan on selling your end product, you can't use the free community version.
Have I misread something?
Only a subset of IntelliJ, the IntelliJ community edition has been released as open source software. The page that you linked to describes a special license of the "Ultimate" edition (which is not open source), that they are specifically giving for free to people who promise that they will only use it for writing open source software for non-commercial purposes.
According to the FAQ, the new open source version of IntelliJ is available under an Apache license.
To clarify:
The community edition of IntelliJ is available under the Apache license, which means you can use it for whatever purposes you want, including writing proprietary, commercial software. It also mean you can modify the code of IntelliJ yourself, sell modified versions of it, anything like that, as long as you abide by the Apache license.
The community edition does not have all of the functionality of the ultimate edition. It only has some of the functionality; for instance, it has support for Java and Groovy, but not Python or Scala. But the community edition can be used for any purposes you want, as long as you follow the terms of the Apache license.
The ultimate edition (which includes extra functionality as listed in their comparison) normally costs money. However, they are also offering the ultimate edition for free to people who promise that they are using it for non-commercial purposes for an open source project (I have no idea how they would actually enforce this, but that's beside the point). I believe this is an offer that they've had since before they released IntelliJ community edition as open source software; as a way of helping out open source development, without giving away everything to everyone.
So, go ahead and download the community edition, and use it for anything you want, from developing free software to developing commercial software to modifying IntelliJ yourself and selling it.
IntelliJ has a licenses folder that you can check out; For instance mine is located under here JetBrains\IntelliJ IDEA 129.111\license
You can see that there is a file called IDEA_OpenSource_license.txt
GRANT OF LICENSE
Subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this
Agreement, including any amendments thereto, Licensor hereby grants to
Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable,royalty-free
license to use the Software for a period of 1 (one) year as follows:
(a) Licensee may: (i) install the version of the Software that has
been specified in License Certificate on multiple Clients and
operating systems; (ii) use the Software by Authorized Users solely
for the purpose of development of non-commercial open source projects
that meet the Open Source Definition at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html, and (iii) make
one back-up copy of the Software solely for archival purposes.
(b) Licensee may not: (i) sell, redistribute (except as set forth in
Paragraph 5 herein), encumber, give, lend, rent, lease, sublicense, or
otherwise transfer the Software, or any portions of the Software, to
anyone without the prior written consent of Licensor; (ii) reverse
engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify, translate, make any attempt
to discover the source code of the Software, or create derivative
works from the Software, or (iii) use the Software for any commercial
purpose.
Which seems to completely go against what the Apache License allows you to do
I wonder if this is a relic of a previous License before it was open sourced?
Edit
Dmitry Jemerov has posted on the following on the Jetbrains blog [source]
IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition is completely free and open-source,
licensed under the Apache 2 license and can be used for any kind of
development. Android Studio has the same licensing terms.
You will find that the free version has most of the features of IntelliJ removed, so you can get experience with IntelliJ, but if you really want to do anything of complexity with it you will need to buy the full-featured version.
But, if you use the free version how can anyone tell which IDE you used to create the java source?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a pretty cool little web framework that we have used successfully on dozens of client projects. We are planning to release this software to the community. However, I am wringing my hands about what should/should-not go on a new open source software project page. What are the things the site must have? Docs? A Wiki? A link to download? What else?
And, a related but possibly different question is how do we begin marking release numbers. All we use internally is the SVN stamp. Is there a good way to determine when to start calling something version 0.9 versus 1.0 and 1.1 and so-on?
You can get an idea of what's required by what open source project hosting sites provide:
A web site which acts as the "one stop shop" for the project
Docs, potentially in wiki form
A source repository allowing browsing, anonymous checkout, and authenticated and authorised commits
Issue tracking and new feature requests
As for version numbers... I don't think anyone's worked out the best way of doing that yet :) With a bare minimum of thought, I'd consider:
v1.0 should be ready for production use
Major version number changes can completely lose backward compatibility (if necessary - hardly a goal though!)
Minor version number changes should usually be mostly compatible - deprecating is probably better than removing/renaming bits of API
Smaller-than-minor version number changes should only include minor functional additions (if any) and bug/performance fixes
On versioning, I think the absolute best place to start from is Semantic Versioning.
The 0.9 / 1.0 / 1.1 / 1.0.1 / ... version labelling is for marketing purpose only (in the good sense of it). This allows your users/customers to identify if the release is major, minor or bug-fix and whether you consider it mature or not yet.
The minimum to deliver is sources. Other deliverables depend on how you are willing to help your users and provide them support.
Choose a website to host the source on first (SourceForge, for example). Get the source up there on a version control system with anonymous checkout. Get an email address on there for people to contact you.
Call this first version 0.1. This is because you don't have docs yet to support the project.
Then breathe.
Then start looking at documentation, like a wiki. Once you have it all covered, at a basic level of detail, and you believe the release is ready for some primetime, then move to 1.0, and start providing binary downloads.
Make sure you think about the license for the sources.
When I look at an open source project, one of the first things I check is the license. If the license is not GPL2/GPL3/BSD styles or similar, that's a demotivator for me.
The license means what people will do with it, how it can grow, and how much it is owned by the corporate who released it. As by choosing open source I try not to depend on corporations (who depend on their share holders), I really choose to use the software that is really free.
As the open source community is very sensitive to corporate power (Google seems a bit immune to that at the moment), so you really must make sure to deliver the message of truly free on your web site and other materials you release about the software.
See more on free software and open source definitions of the FSF.
Take a look at GitHub or Google Code. they provide a very good starting point for own open source projects. You can describe your project, documentate in a wiki, use git or svn as your repository, and provide downloads together with an issue tracking and multi-developer management. Nice environments out of the box to learn from and to use them.
For release numbers: I don't recommend 0.9 or something like this for pre-releases. The reason? What about release 1.9? Is it the 9th sub-release of the major release 1 or is it the last pre-release of release 2? My release standard is decribed here: http://code.google.com/p/tideland-eas/wiki/ReleaseStandard. I'm using a three-number-scheme, major, minor, and fix, together with a status code, alpha, beta, gamma, and the release date. So I'm able to handle multiple releases in parallel easily.
Hope this helps.
mue