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 am probably being desperately naive here, but i wanted to clear something up. RUP appears to be a proprietary process owned by IBM. What implications does that have for any project wanting to implement it?
Logically, i struggle to see how any 'process' can be made proprietary - you are simply following a series of tasks in a prescribed order. Further to this, there appears to be similar methodologies like AUP and OpenUP that work in a very similar manner but are open source.
The only conclusion i can come to, is that the proprietary aspect refers to the tools and diagrams made available to assist in implementing these.
As i said, i am probably being desperately naive but i wanted to clear up the confusion.
I think you can apply the RUP.
I believe UML is an OMG standard, not a proprietary IBM technology.
The licenses apply to the tools that IBM sells to support it. IBM bought Rational Software, which was founded by the Three Amigoes who were responsible for unifying their competing object notations into a single standard, since taken up by OMG.
If you're really worried, best to consult a lawyer. But I believe you're safe from legal hassles if you use UML and RUP.
I'd challenge what value you'll get from both, but that's another question.
Well, you can apply RUP without any licence...Generally IBM focus on that you can only apply with help of some tools which are their tools generally...But this is marketing...
You do not need any tools[ case tool] to apply RUP even IBM tools...Of course good tools help you...I do not under estimate them...But they are just tools...Tools can not think for you...
You can apply rup with some paper, white board...
Just look at this article from IBM [ ironically ]
Project coloration using the Rational Unified Process by Karen Ulferts
at this link:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/edge/08/jan08/ulferts/index.html
Related
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
What licenses are the best for open sourcing web applications?
It depends on your licensing goals.
If you just want the code to be widely usable, MIT or 3-clause BSD work fine.
If you want to require redistributions of your code to be under the same license, GPL works.
If you want to require deployments of your web application to distribute its source code, with any modifications, then you'll need the AGPL.
If you are fine with your application being used as the basis for a proprietary web service, then just pick a standard license (BSD, GPL, MPL, whatever) using the same criteria as for other projects. If you want to prevent that, however, the only option I know of is AGPL, which requires that installations provide source to their users. Then BigBucksServiceVendor can set up an installation, tweak it, and charge users to use it, but they must provide their source code so that someone else can do the same as well.
The AGPL also, though, is not near as widely used as many of the other licenses. That may impact your decision.
The answer for the "best" depends too much what you hope to accomplish, so a concrete answer is impossible.
If you would like to know more about the types of open sources licenses and what they offer, Wikipedia is a great place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license
Despite the multitude of open-source licenses, there are probably only a few you can realistically choose from when it all boils down. As Mike was saying, it all really depends on what you're looking for.
Realize that open-sourcing is just another form of license protection, so deciding for yourself the terms under which you want it to be released will greatly affect which license you choose. Do you want to allow commercial endeavors to profit from your work? What if someone were to modify your code significantly into their own derivative product... can they distribute it (for free or not) without also distributing the original or at least linking back to you? Do you care if anyone gives you credit at all for your work? These are just a few questions that should probably be answered before you head too far down this road.
I'd recommend taking a look at a few wiki pages -- specifically, investigate the difference between permissive and non-permissive licenses, as these are the two major types of open-source license. When you get around to figuring out what exactly you want to protect and how you'd like to protect it, that's when I think the right decision will become clearer for you.
Pick a License, Any License
There are a variety of options depending on what you're looking for. There is a very good article on Wikipedia describing many of the licenses and what it means to use a specific license.
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
Background: There are a couple of concerns that are not core business for us. They are essential to our core business, but we have no business writing on our own, in terms of manpower, time, and expertise. I am familiar and very comfortable with some open-source implementations, using closed-source-friendly licenses, that could fill these gaps. Closed-source alternatives I either could not find, or were crap.
I put together an informal proposal to show my boss, including the original licenses for each project for legal review. Being a business owner that knows little about the world of open-source, he was initially hesitant when he realized some of these libraries were. I tried to educate him to the best of my abilities (I'm no open-source warrior myself), but he did bring up some valid questions that, in some cases, I don't feel I answered as well as I could have.
Concerns (worded from my boss's prospective)
How do we know and ensure there is no malicious code in an open-source project? Read and understand every line? At that point we could have just written it ourselves!
Who do we blame when things go wrong? With support licenses and a responsible party, we can get things fixed. And if they fail to come through, well... you know.
How do we establish or measure that an approach or implementation in an open-source project is sound, efficient, or good quality?
What sort of liability do we open ourselves up to, in terms of licensing [granted, this is more a question for lawyers and an issue of RFTL].
Question: How have or would you have addressed these concerns?
How do we know and ensure there is no malicious code in an open-source project? Read and understand every line? At that point we could have just written it ourselves!
Same problem with closed source. Actually worse with closed source. With open source at least you CAN review it yourself, or you can take someone else's word for it. With closed source, taking someone's word for it is your only option.
Who do we blame when things go wrong? With support licenses and a responsible party, we can get things fixed. And if they fail to come through, well... you know.
Probably the biggest issue. This depends on which particular solutions you're using. Some things are backed by a reputable vendor (e.g. Red Hat) whereas others have virtually no support. But that "you know" is critical here: ultimately there is no way to guarantee that someone will fix bugs that you encounter when you are using closed source. At least with open source you can hire a 3rd party consultant to do the job, for the right price, because you have the source.
How do we establish or measure that an approach or implementation in an open-source project is sound, efficient, or good quality?
The same way you would with any other code? I don't have any better answers for this one.
What sort of liability do we open ourselves up to, in terms of licensing [granted, this is more a question for lawyers and an issue of RFTL].
Yep, have a lawyer advise you on this. Every tech business should employ a lawyer anyway. The answer will depend on the specific licenses you're dealing with and what exactly you plan to do with the software you develop.
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
Example: 2 of our top 3 users are working in almost equivalent projects (I don't know them in depth, maybe I'm wrong):
Marc Gravell's Protobuf-Net
Jon Skeet's DotNet-Protobuf
Jokes about Jon Skeet apart, and dreaming with an prideless ideal world (sorry guys, I am not accusing you of being arrogant, is a fact that every programmer must defend his own code), wouldn't it be a great opportunity to join efforts?
I am not saying that the community should decide what an individual must do, I just want you to raise pro and cons of merging projects, and what projects must have to be subject of such analysis.
Starting a new project without a thorough research of the available solutions and without taking into serious consideration the possibility to join an existing project, is something that the community should frown upon more emphatically. Maybe a programmer's education should include some discussion on the cost of effort duplication.
Having said that, experimenting with different approaches to solve the same problem is healthy, and once a programmer has some toy code, we should thank him for making it available to the public regardless of the existence of similar projects.
I think that the authors should seriously consider a merge if:
one design has proven clearly superior to the other
one community is being more active than the other
both projects share the same ideas on future directions
the work required to merge the two codebases is feasible
Merging should happen when it is overall beneficial. For example, if either or both of the projects:
Are too weak to survive on their own (not enough active development to keep up with technology changes); or...
Could provide good synergy through overlapping (i.e. not fully identical) functionalities.
However, there isn't anything wrong with having two strong projects that both do the same thing - it can help to encourage innovation as they try to be better than each other.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
You could very well leave out "as a technical lead", but I think it puts the situation into context. I'm a technical lead, we're building a new app, and I have an idea of the language I would like the team to use. If one or more want to use a different language (out of personal preference), is it appropriate for me to reject it (out of personal preference). It really does have to do with coding style, and nothing much else.
I don't think you need to "reject it out of preference". You need to determine the root cause for why it isn't a preference of yours and reject it for those reasons.
If you can rationalize your decision with those reasons, you'll sound more credible to your reports as well as having good documentable reasons for why you did or did not use a given technology. For projects I've worked on, these "reasons" are usually a requirement.
You are responsible for the technical success of the project. Your reports are not. So yes.
By priorities
Choose one best fit for the task
Choose one you and your people are most fluent in
Choose one that is already used in your codebase
"It's good to be the king"
I dont't think it would be right to dismiss the other languages because you prefer another unless it really does not make any difference which language that you use.
First look at the other language objectivly and see what the merits for that language are. You should reject a language because it is not the right tool for the job but not because you do not like it.
/Flamebait On
If it's VisualBasic, then yes......
/Flamebait Off
HMcG
It's never a good idea to reject something just because you aren't familiar with it or have a bias against it. There are good reasons for not using a language/technology and these should be the basis for your decisions. Normally, these reasons include:
Lack of support for the language in
the team, support team. This is a
biggy - if your team delivers an
application that can't be supported
because nobody else knows the
technology then you shouldn't do it.
The technology is unproven. You
shouldn't use a live project to
prove a technology just because a
developer wants to improve their
resume. There are too many pitfalls
here, and I've seen so many projects
fail spectacularly just because the
developers were all looking at the
wrong technology.
Licensing. Just
because there's a new language out,
doesn't mean that you can afford to
use it. The language may require
certain libraries/IDEs that you
don't have and would have to invest
in.
You can't discount that you will be a more effective leader leading a team using tools and techniques you are familiar with and believe in. But, if you are forcing the team to use something that maybe isn't the best fit for the project, you will not gain their respect and ultimately be very ineffective.
Which language are you talking about?
It should be the team's decision.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
One problem I have with open-source is not often the product or documentation, but the level of community involvement and support. Response time for some questions on official forums can take more than a week, which can honestly make a big difference when choosing a platform for commercial services use. However, I find that evaluating the community beforehand is very difficult. How do I know what are the most common issues, and whether or not people are getting support for them? How do I know what problems I personally might encounter based upon my project, which would require some level of community support? Do you have a formula for performing this evaluation?
I've usually found that relying on community support for anything mission critical is asking for trouble. So I usually stay away from open source unless it's something that I'm confident we can support in-house or there is a commercial support service available for it.
If your question is posed because you don't want to pay for support, then I think your best bet is to ask questions about a specific project on neutral forums like this and see what others have experienced in terms of support and timeliness of resolution to issues.
If you are willing to pay for support, there are companies that provide commercial support for open source projects, like OpenLogic as an example that could factor into your formula.
The only real way to evaluate the community is to try it, participate in the community. Most communities will have good support networks available in one manner or another. Also many individuals are starting to offer support services for the various frameworks as well, for those looking for a more dedicated resource for problem resolution.
But I find the best way is to just get in there, ask a few questions, poke around at the resources, and really see what is there.