Are portable version of adobe software legal? because when i tried to browse their official site they didn't mention about portable version of their products instead a trial version.
NO, they are not legal, at-least not always.
Adobe Reader (not Acrobat) is Freeware.
define: freeware,
Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is
available for use at no monetary cost, but with one or more restricted
usage rights such as source code being withheld or redistribution
prohibited.1[3] Freeware is in contrast to commercial software,
which is typically sold for profit, but might be distributed at no
cost for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the
marketshare of a "premium" product.
And also if you search deeper at licenses-terms/pdf/Reader_11_0_en,
under sections
3.3 Distribution. This license does not grant you the right to sublicense or distribute the Software. For
information about obtaining the right to distribute the Software on tangible media or through an
internal network or with your product or service please refer
to http://www.adobe.com/go/acrobat_distribute for information about Adobe Reader;
or http://www.adobe.com/go/licensing for information about the Adobe Runtimes.
Even though making a software Portable involves less or no modification to the source code, it is a form of redistribution especially when you make it available to the public. This is clearly restricted in the documents.
Other Adobe software have similar Terms of Use.
One exception is Brackets which is maintained by Adobe along with a community of other developers. Brackets is Open Source (very different from Freeware).
This answer was specific to Adobe software and Adobe Reader. Other companies may have more lenient rules.
Judging from the described features, the Alfresco Team and Alfresco Share products look very similar.
What are the technical differences?
Here are a few differences I have heard about, but a better list would be welcome:
Video preview
Preview for more Adobe products (Illustrator etc?)
Some kind of link with Google Apps maybe?
There is need for clarification to #Heiko Robert. His answer is not valid anymore. Team has been discontinued, and it didn't replace Alfresco Enterprise.
Team was not the latest Enterprise Edition, but a cheaper license with the restrictions that #Heiko has mentioned (and some more. For example, the number of users is also limited).
Team is being replaced by the Alfresco Cloud, as you can see if you click on the "Team Customizations" link posted by #Tahir Malik.
Alfresco Enterprise is well and very alive, and a new version 4 is available.
Regarding Share: Alfresco has two web user interfaces: one is the original, known as Alfresco Explorer, and the newest one is Alfresco Share. Alfresco Explorer is a faster UI, based on JSF, but it is more difficult to customize, and it is not being developed anymore. On the other hand, Share is the "second generation" UI, which is based on Surf, which is much easier to customize. At this point, Share is actively being developed, but, as far as I know, it is close to provide 100% of the functionality provided by Alfresco Explorer.
Alfresco Explorer will probably be around for several years to come, because a lot of people already developed applications on it, so that should give them time to migrate to share.
It's more or less a question of licensing. Team seems to be the latest Enterprise Edition but with major limitations in
Number of Documents
Customization: No Customizations in any way (no custom doc models, workflows, automation, actions)
Usage: restricted to the Share-Interface only (no Explorer, no webscripts, not integration with other systems)
I found this Blog helpful: Alfresco Team: First Thoughts and Limitations to Consider
Anyway - if you're looking for a out of the box tool to share documents in workgroups/teams this may the tool you should look into.
I don't think there are much technical differences, because both are build on the Surf Platform and are quite equal in functionality.
I think you should see this page of the Team Site: Team Customizations
The main difference is that you can't do whatever you like with Team and you can with Share (Enterprise/Community).
There are a few features in Alfresco Team that are new, and which aren't in Alfresco 3.4 (Enterprise or Community). Video Preview and a few more transformers are in that list. Those new features are available on HEAD though, so if you take a nightly build you'll get them. They'll all be in Swift (likely 4.0), which is due out later this year. See Jeff Pott's blog for some more info on Swift.
The Alfresco Team website has a lot of info on Team on it, which should help you decide if it's a good fit for you, or if you need the full Community/Enterprise version.
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 use 3rd party library in my asp.net application. Then application will be deployed on client server. Owner says: a Developer License licenses only ONE developer to create ONE .NET application using their library and Developer License is not royalty free. What does it mean that it's not royalty free?
None of the other answers so far is exactly correct. From a practice standpoint, it can mean all or none of those things, depending on what the producer of the library wants as part of a license.
By saying it's "not royalty free", he's emphasizing in no uncertain terms that it's a rights-managed license, which is essentially the converse of a royalty free license.
Generally, the fees due through a rights managed license scale with the utility gained from the use of it. This contrasts with a royalty free license, which generally grants rights in perpetuity without need for further compensation.
Whether or not you have to pay per deployment will depend on the specific rights that the licensor grants you. All that statement means is that there may be such additional charges. A scaling per-deployment royalty is one of the more common fee schedules used with software rights-managed licenses, but it is by no means the only one.
"Royalty free" means that you don't need to do additional payments to the library maker when you distribute an application that make use of the library. If it is not, it means that you need to pay a fee to the library maker for each copy of your application that you distribute.
It means you cannot distribute the libraries without paying the vendor a license fee for each deployment/ client distribution.
Sometimes this is because the vendor is an OEM partner with another company that licenses software/IP/libraries to them, where they in turn pay a royalty. I found this to be the case with some PDF libraries.
It means that you need to pay for every installation/deployment. A royalty free license means that you pay once for the license and then you are allowed to install the software as many times as you wish.
Are there any restrictions for using coherence.jar without any license?
coherence.jar is open for downloading without any fee.
You can use it for development purposes. Any other purpose means purchasing a license. On the download page is a link to the license agreement that states:
You may not:
use the programs for your own internal data processing or for any
commercial or production purposes, or
use the programs for any purpose
except the development of your
application;
use the application you develop with the programs for any internal data
processing or commercial or production
purposes without securing an
appropriate license from us;
continue to develop your application after you have used it for any
internal data processing, commercial
or production purpose without securing
an appropriate license from us, or an
Oracle reseller;
remove or modify any program markings or any notice of our
proprietary rights;
make the programs available in any manner to any third party;
use the programs to provide third party training;
assign this agreement or give or transfer the programs or an interest
in them to another individual or
entity; - cause or permit reverse
engineering (unless required by law
for interoperability), disassembly or
decompilation of the programs;
disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior
consent.
The first two points are the most relevant.
On the Coherence download page it says you need to agree to the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) License Agreement to download the software.
That license contains this text:
We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing, testing, prototyping and demonstrating your application, and not for any other purpose. If you use the application you develop under this license for any internal data processing or for any commercial or production purposes, or you want to use the programs for any purpose other than as permitted under this agreement, you must obtain a production release version of the program by contacting us or an Oracle reseller to obtain the appropriate license.
So it's a free download only for development purposes. (Most Oracle Products are available free to developers.)
But if you want to use this code in production or in a product you're selling you will need a license.
Have you considered using Infinispan as an open source alternative to Coherence?
Don't forget that the version that you download from the public website is usually just the major release. The minor release, with all the many bug fixes, is only available if you have a support contract.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
One thing that I keep hearing in reference to ASP.NET and MSFT technologies is that they cost money to use. Often when they are being compared to open source languages someone will mention that one factor in favor of open source is that it's free (to an extent). My question is, when does ASP.NET actually cost money to use in terms of using the proprietary technology?
Understandably there are the hosting fees, but I'm curious about the fees outside of these hosting fees. I'm especially curious about this as it relates one-person smaller-site development (non-team/large enterprise). Any help is appreciated.
(edits)
Some excellent answers. Much appreciated
The projects that I'm looking to use the technologies for would be personal sites and very small business sites (1 or 2). The intent would of course be that these projects get much bigger. It seems that for commercial production, fees will apply. What about just basic dynamic "shared hosting" sites that provide information?
You have to measure many things when you determine cost. We recently went through an evaluation of platform choice by an outside vendor, and the recommendation is that we stay with a Microsoft.NET platform. Why? For us, the reason is that once you get to an enterprise-level product suite, the difference is not as big as people would like you to believe.
Purchasing Microsoft products is a sound choice. The initial cost might seem high, but keep in mind if you get Software Assurance on your purchase (Visual Studio, for example) you are entitled to free upgrades as long as you keep you SA current - and it is at a fraction of the cost of a repurchase. Many people think you need to buy the full retail version every time, and that is just not true. Work with a larger vendor, like CDW, to help with licensing questions. They got someone from Microsoft's Licensing Division on the phone with us and helped us choose what was right. Not high-pressured at all. They actually talked us down on some of the things we thought we needed.
MSDN subscriptions are great. I have one through my employer, but also used to maintain one personally. If you are a contractor/self-employed, it is an operational expense. Like buying full products, renewing a MSDN subscription is very inexpensive compared to a purchase, and especially considering what you get. The licensing within MSDN is rather generous, and since you are a one-person shop, if I read that correctly, one MSDN is more than enough for your non-production needs. Plus, the bundled Support Incidents are a nice plus, as well.
There are many versions of Visual Studio, from the Express Editions all the way up to the Team Editions. For example, we are rolling out Team Foundation Server right now, so our costs are obviously higher. For a startup or small shop, there are TFS hosting partners and you can get Team Explorer for free. Or you can mix and match, using Visual Studio for development and something like VSS, SVN, or countless other version control products out there.
Just because someone "goes open source", that does not mean that it is free. Yes, the platform choice might be free, and the tools might be free, but there is a definite chance that you will need a commercial library or component some day. Plus, nothing prevents you from going with Open Source products with Microsoft, either. There are many open source projects written in .NET that can be leveraged with your solutions, and Microsoft is becoming a lot more transparent. We are working on a very large, enterprise solution right now and we are using only one "commercial" product, outside of our development tooling. There is a lot of Open Source usage, and a lot of implementations cobbled from community musings and examples.
The one thing that often goes unmentioned is the human cost that goes into these decisions. Microsoft is hated by many and their solutions might not be the fastest or most robust (although I will take IIS7 on W2K8 over any other web server configuration any day) they are focusing on making people more productive at what they can do. You aren't just buying products with them, you are actually buying productivity. As someone who has worked in a few Open Source shops, I am very appreciative of all the things that they have gotten right and understand that free does not always mean better.
I have a "one-person" side business and I really recommend looking into an MSDN subscription. It will give you access to tools and technologies that you would not otherwise be able to get your hands on without going a la carte in a retail route. Talk with someone, like a CDW, to help you figure out your licensing needs. If it works out, definitely try that route. You can cover all your in-house needs in a one person shop with an MSDN subscription, most likely (for example, a lot of the products are available to install to you (as a user) up to ten times as long as the machines that they are installed on are "yours" and non-production. There are exceptions to that, but not many.)
If that does not work, try the free route. You can definitely use Mono for .NET Development, as well as the Express Editions. I know a few C# developers who swear by Mono and could not be happier.
Best of luck to you!
Often when they are being compared to open source languages someone will mention that one factor in favor of open source is that it's free (to an extent). My question is, when does ASP.NET actually cost money to use in terms of using the proprietary technology?
Usually when people refer to "cost" in the way you described, they're implicitly referring to TCO, or total cost of ownership. The cost is not an explicit cost in that you've paid for something directly, but rather the long-term price of using something over its lifetime.
For example, even if a particular proprietary technology is free, it may be more difficult to hire and find people who know about it to work on your project. Consequently, if it is less popular than some open-source equivalent, you may wind up paying more for the same amount of labor because appropriately talented staff will be harder to find and in higher demand.
Conversely, if an open-source product is free but has low mindshare or performs poorly, it may well be worth it to pay for an expensive, closed-source proprietary solution rather than having to learn the idiosyncracies of the open-source version.
Naturally, there is some controversy surrounding just how to measure TCO, with both camps having some valid points.
.NET is free
C# compilers are free
Certain versions of Visual Studio are free, and you don't actually need it to write for .NET anyway (though it really, really helps!)
There are many free online resources for learning .NET, such as http://asp.net
In short, there's no real cost to using ASP.NET other than the hosting fee of the website or options you might buy to make things easier (better versions of Visual Studio.)
There's more of an ideological divide, with open source guys on one side being pretty anti-microsoft and so claiming it's high cost to use. I wouldn't worry about them. ;)
There are a couple of good answers already, but I'd like to add "it depends".
joseph.ferris obviously works in a large organization, where the cost of switching platforms is going to be very, very expensive, so the cost of paying the licensing costs is much less that the cost of switching. Take a look at Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry for Mar. 11, especially the section titled "When Free is too Expensive" for another reason to go with fully-supported infrastructure.
But consider a couple of other scenarios.
First, there's the hobbyist, which is what you seem to be addressing - you want to play around with the technology, and maybe put up a website or three. There aren't any issues with privacy or scalability, so you can deploy your application on an inexpensive shared hosting solution. In this case, costs are pretty much irrelevant - whatever platform you pick, you can get free tools to get you started. Remember kids, the first hit is always free.
For a startup, things are a bit different. If the goal is to build a large website, the potential licensing costs can be daunting - it's probably going to a lot cheaper to go with open source. In addition to the production environment, you need to pay for development environments, testing, etc. Even for a small company, licenses may be more than they have in the budget - a single Windows 2003 server Enterprise license lists for $4k. If you're trying to break into a competitive environment and compete on price, this alone may make you uncompetitive. I have seen situations where a Windows-based solution (server, database, and custom development coupled with a content management system) is two or three times the price of an open source solution.
I know that it has been answered, but I will put my 2 cents. Why are you wondering about the cost of ASP.net? In my opinion, the choice of technology in your case (1-2 ppl development freelancer team) should be governed by technology familiarity. If you are an ASP.net expert, the expense of buying the products and MSDN subscription is well-worth it, because it's your primary language of choice that you know well, hence the projects that you implement, will be done better and faster, so it makes sense to stay with it.
However, if you happen to know another technology just as well and you are comfortable that you can deliver a robust product on-time with it, it may be worth it to go low cost. As a contractor, the main objective is to not lose time/money hence you pick a technology that balances your expenses and time spent learning it. In other words, if you are a Java expert, there is no point of paying for asp.net. If you know asp,net well already, then sure, stay with it.
The clients rarely care whether you used Ruby, PHP, Python, Java or ASP.net. They care about time lines, their cost and quality.
I find that it does not cost much money to use. It does infact cost a pretty penny to get windows based hosting. Visual studio is also expensive. After those, though, not many expenses are encountered.
If you want to use the more professional versions of Visual Studio to develop your applications: you will need to pay for that.
Also, there are a lot of commercial components available on the market. These will save you time or improve your product, but at a cost.
For open source, there are also a lot of components, but in this scene most is free/open.