Related
I'm planning to "upgrade" the MS-Access desktop application I've developed for various customers with various Access versions - to Access 2019.
That is because of 3 main reasons:
Bigint support
Better ODBC connectivity
New technique for building graphs.
Now most of my customers run Access desktop applications through Access Runtime. And most of them have various versions of MS-Office Standard, say 2003, 2007, 2010 or 2013 etc.
It is NOT a problem to run excel automation VBA code from Access, and we use it a lot.
If we plan to use Access 2019 to benefit from all the above advantages - what kind of Runtime am I to give to the customers?
It's been said in various places that NO Access-Runtime-2019 is been planned to be built. I've talked with a Microsoft representative and he said "Your Access-2019 applications will have to be run on Access 2013 or 2016 runtime, and it is supposed to work just fine".
My 3-fold question is:
If an Access-2019 application - which uses the above features - is run with Access-Runtime 2013 or 2016 - will these special 2019 features really work?
What about Access-365-Runtime? Will these features work with it?
I've read about the problem to install newer versions of Office in the same machine where older versions exist: The 2016/365 Office uses C2R installation technique, while older Offices use MSI installation technique (see link here). So my conclusion is that my customers, who rely on the existence of Excel 2007 or 2010, for instance, while working with my Access applications - will have to abandon these 2007/2010 Offices because of the new Access-2019 applications that we plan to give them with Runtime 2016/365. Is that true?
I know users with Office 365 will do fine. My question was about trying to run Access-2019 applications - in older environments of MS-Office, like Office 2007 or 2010. After all, they had paid for those Offices long before Office 365 was developed, and why would they want to change them...
This post is another clue:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45715914/access-2016-64bit-mso-365-deployed-database-cannot-run-with-any-runtime-aval?rq=1
According to what's written there, Runtime 2016 doesn't support Bigint (which is one of the features we want to use Access 2019)! So when the Microsoft representative I've talked with said "Just run it on 2016-Runtime!" - He ignored (or worse than that - didn't know) that Bigint will NOT be supported! So what do we do about it now?
If an Access-2019 application - which uses the above features - is run with Access-Runtime 2013 or 2016 - will these special 2019 features really work?
No. The information you got was incorrect.
I know users with Office 365 will do fine. My question was about trying to run Access-2019 applications - in older environments of MS-Office, like Office 2007 or 2010. After all, they had paid for those Offices long before Office 365 was developed, and why would they want to change them...
Because Office 2007 stopped getting security updates in 2017, and Office 2010 stopped getting security updates in 2020. Given the fact that Office documents and Outlook are major attack vector on Windows systems, using a non-supported version of Office on an Internet-connected PC is not something your customers should do (unless they enjoy paying ransom to cybercrime gangs).
I've read about the problem to install newer versions of Office in the same machine where older versions exist: The 2016/365 Office uses C2R installation technique, while older Offices use MSI installation technique (see link here). So my conclusion is that my customers, who rely on the existence of Excel 2007 or 2010, for instance, while working with my Access applications - will have to abandon these 2007/2010 Offices because of the new Access-2019 applications that we plan to give them with Runtime 2016/365. Is that true?
Let's clarify a few things first:
Office 2007 is v12, Office 2010 is v14, Office 2013 is v15 and Office 2016/2019/2022/365 are v16.
There are MSI and C2R versions of Office products. v14 and below are MSI, v15 is mostly MSI (Office 2013 C2R exists but is rarely used), and v16 is mostly C2R (except for Office 2016 volume licenses and the Access 2016 runtime, which are MSI).
This is what we learned by practical experience:
Different MSI versions of Office can be installed side-by-side, except for Outlook. You will see the "Office is being installed..." window frequently if you regularly switch between different versions, which is annoying.
MSI and C2R of the same version cannot be installed side-by-side. Thus, if a customer runs Office 365 (which is v16 C2R), you can't install the Access 2016 runtime (which is v16 MSI).
The Access 365 Runtime is supposed to be compatible with all v16 C2R versions of Office. In practice, we had some cases where it wasn't, so we dropped support for it and required customers using v16 C2R to use an edition with the full version of Access included.
So, yes, the combination Office 2007/2010 (v12/v14 MSI) with the Access 365 Runtime (v16 C2R) should work, even though I would personally recommend against it (see the point about Office 2007/2010 being out of support above).
Microsoft 365 Access Runtime will support all recent feature updates. Just make sure that you're installing the latest version:
Microsoft 365 Access Runtime Online Installer
This is a discussion that shows Office 365 is essentially Office 2019 with more up-to-date features:
UserVoice
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...
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Since last August 2009, I have been working on project but then decided to release it as an open source project. The purpose of this project is to provide an alternative to existing commercial & expensive solution.
So my question is, how can I get started ? The prototype has been ready since May and now being rewritten in Java. Which license type do I need to pursue ? LGPL? MIT?
Thank you,
John.
Figure out what you want people to be able to do with it.
Do you want people to be able to use it for anything, including commercial stuff, or do you want it to be locked down as open source crazy GNU stuff?
This list should be a good start.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
Next, pick a place to host the project. Google Code is a great one and I believe they require your project is a certain license. So that makes your decision for you.
Another thing you might want to consider is source control. If you like SVN, Git, or something else that can matter. GitHub is a good place for git projects and almost all of your hosts will have svn support.
There are numerous Open Source licenses, but the ones I'd recommend are either BSD-style or the GPL. You'll have to decide which you like. Should people be able to take what you've done and wrap them into proprietary software and sell it, without necessarily giving back their changes? Up to you. A BSD-type license might get you more users, and a GPL-type license might get you more development help.
If you're thinking of dual-licensing, with an open source and a commercial license, you almost certainly want to go GPL for the open source license, since BSD-style doesn't leave you with enough extra rights to sell.
You keep the copyright on everything you do that's not for hire, unless you explicitly give it away. If you start getting help from other people, you need to decide what to do. You can ask for the copyright to be transferred to you, which will keep your complete copyright control at the expense of discouraging outside developers. You can trademark your software, to keep the branding, and this is independent of who owns what copyright. I'd advise talking to a lawyer about that, as trademark law isn't as clean as copyright law, and can vary from state to state. If you live in the US, you can probably get a lawyer referral from your local bar association, and it shouldn't cost much for an initial consultation.
As Jonathan said, check the OSI for information on possible licenses. Pick one from there. They'll all work, more or less, unlike a license you might write up (unless you know what you're doing). Some sites, like Sourceforge, don't allow projects that are not under an OSI-approved license, so you'll get more options with an OSI license. Moreover, lots of people are already familiar with the standard licenses, and you won't have to explain your license to them.
You could use any of the main Open Source licences - it is going to depend on what you want from the project.
GPL
Berkeley (minus advertizing clause)
MIT
Apache
You probably wouldn't use the LGPL unless what you're writing is a library.
So the Open Source Initiative for information abuot possible open source licences. Do not try to invent your own.
If you want be protective about the software you could for example one of
GPL
LGPL
But in many cases a more permissive license attracts more users.
MIT
Apache
are quite permissive.
If you want to do dual licensing then consider using GPL and a commercial license.
Before you pick a license and you have to answer yourself :
Do I want forks?
Do I want commercial usage of my software?
Do I want that my software is included in commercial software?
Do I want to enforce any license on forks?
Pick an already established license from here : http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
If you want to setup your project then just have a look at GNU Hello, which I think is a good template to start setting up an open source project and regrading license it depends what you want from projects as explained by others already.
TL;DR Legal allows you to look up open source software licenses and get a summary, in plain English, of what you Can, Can't and Must do with the software. It also allows you to see the affects of combining two licenses, although that option is misleadingly called "Compare Licenses."
I have just started working on an open source project. The project is hosted on CodePlex and I work on it in my spare time. What would be appropriate values for the default assembly attributes (listed below)?
[assembly: AssemblyCompany("")]
[assembly: AssemblyCopyright("")]
[assembly: AssemblyTrademark("")]
It surprised me to see the AssemblyCompany and AssemblyCopyright attributes on several projects (on CodePlex as well as Google Code):
xUnit.net
[assembly: AssemblyCopyright("Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation")]
[assembly: AssemblyCompany("Microsoft Corporation")]
DotNetNuke:
<Assembly: AssemblyCompany("DotNetNuke Corporation")>
<Assembly: AssemblyCopyright("DotNetNuke is copyright 2002-2010 by DotNetNuke Corporation. All Rights Reserved.")>
Moq:
[assembly: AssemblyCompany("Clarius Consulting, Manas Technology Solutions, InSTEDD")]
Put your name (and your company, if applicable) and a copyright statement into the assembly. It won't affect the applicability of the license, unless the license itself is incompatible with copyright; you can still license the software as you see fit.
You don't have to relinquish copyright to license your code to others, unless you're putting the code into the public domain. Holding the copyright means you get to decide how the software is distributed.
Under the LGPL (and most other FOSS licenses) you retain the copyright, so you can put "Copyright (C) 2009-2010 MichielVoo. All rights reserved". This does not affect the license, on the contrary, it's needed to assert copyright, which is what the license relies upon to enforce the "ownership" of the work.
You should also make sure that ever source file in your product/project contains a license stub.
Trademark is not required unless you actually hold a trademark on something related to the project. For example, Mozilla owns trademarks to the "Mozilla" name and artwork related to Firefox, so they assert those trademarks. If your project is called "FooBar" and you hold a trademark to that term then you would assert it there.
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?