When Versata Software sued Ameriprise Financial Services for breaching its software license, it unwittingly unearthed a GPL violation of its own and touched off another lawsuit that could prove to be a leading case on free and open source software licensing.
Few would deny that the rise of GitHub as a popular hosting service for software projects is one of the most significant developments to affect open source during the past five years. GitHub[he]#039[/he]s extraordinary success is necessary context for understanding the criticism leveled at it during the past year from some within or close to the open source world.
According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbi...tems#TrueCrypt :
"The TrueCrypt software is under a poor license, which is not only non-free, but has the potential to be actively dangerous to end users or distributors who agree to it, opening them to possible legal action even if they abide by all of the licensing terms, depending on the intent of the upstream copyri
I am working with a vendor who is supplying a server-based application which requires licensing for activation. There are two options, software-based licensing and hardware (USB-dongle) based activation. What are the pros and cons to using hardware or software license keys in an environment where the application software is running on a VMware based server?
My understanding is that some of the software in the multiverse repository is open source even if its licensing is not free. For example, maelstrom, if I remember correctly, is open source, but there are issues with the license on the graphics. Regardless, I don't want to introduce closed-source software to my systems, but I don't have Stallman Syndrome either.