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
Is mysql license needed for sites like facebook, twitter etc.. i dont know which category they fall into. thats why.
No, they can use GPL which is freely available. They would need to make Software that links to MySQL like a library or is even based on MySQL GPL, too, but as far as I know, they are not doing any of that. Even if, the GPL would force them to pass on the source code to anyone to whom they give the binary. Since they are not giving away the binary to anyone, there would not be a problem either ;-).
Related
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've come across the phrase multiple times the past month or so, usually when talking about functionality. Is this any different than saying 'built-in', or carry with it any specific connotations?
From dictionary.com:
a. (Computers) to incorporate (a feature) as part of a
system or piece of software or hardware while it is still in
development: The location-tracking service is baked in the new app.
Security features come baked into the operating system.
b. To include
as an inseparable or permanent part: Baked into the price of the
product is the cost of advertising.
Your assumptions are correct. It pretty much means that you don't have to do anything special to install this functionality. It's built in. Already there.
Other variants are:
Rolled in
Built in
Native
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been looking at OpsCode's Chef, which seems pretty cool. I was wondering if anyone else had encountered useful tools?
The classic is cfengine. It's been around forever.
CFEngine has indeed been around forever, but the newest version (CFEngine 3) is a complete rewrite from previous versions. The policy language in CF3 is redesigned to make it more consistent and extensible. There's also now, if you are so inclined, a commercial version that has a nice graphical user interface and other enhancements.
There's a whole lot of information about CFEngine at http://cfengine.com/tech
(disclaimer: I work at CFEngine AS)
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
I was checking out what it would take to add my free extension to Magento Connect. I noticed a list of open source licenses. Can anyone point out the major difference?
Roughly speaking they're all about the same. Each license permits anyone to reuse your code as long as they credit you, but the (L)GPL, MPL and OSL prohibit someone from doing so with a different license to the one you chose.
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
I want to use CxxTest for unit-testing in an application. I do not want to be forced to release source code or object files. The LGPL (under which CxxTest is released) is confusing on this issue.
Am I ok? Do I need to do something special?
As long as you're not distributing your tests it's not something you need to worry about.
If money is involved, you need to consult with an attorney. LGPL is not straightforward.
From what I can see, you'll be alright with the LGPL, however,
If it is a derivative work, then the terms must allow "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."
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
I have ported some LGPL code from Java to C#, which I plan to release as an open source component. Do I have to release my new library under LGPL too, or can I go with something less restrictive like MS-PL?
Since you're basing your work on the original LGPL work, it seems to me that your work is a derivative of the original, and so section 2 of the license applies: Your code needs to be LGPL or, at your option, GPL. (The wording is different in versions 2 and 3, but it's the same section.) But I'm just a programmer, so what do I know? You're asking a question about the law, so your best course of action is to ask a lawyer.
I believe you have to use LGPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
It depends on whether your port is a derivative work (generally port == derivative work).