similar to: Windows licensing for Xen

Hello List, I have a system that came with an OEM copy of Windows 8, and I want to virtualize that same copy of Windows on top of Xen. While I''ve done this with retail copies before, that''s just a matter of a license key. BIOS SLICs, while convenient, are likely less straightforward to translate into a VM. Does anyone know if this is possible and/or supported by Xen/QEMU?

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 23:36 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't want to discourage you, but you are basically asking for > interpretation of legal documents... > If you really really need to know the answer to questions like these, > the best bet is to hire legal council. Chris is right. I would add that it sounds like you are already getting nonsense responses. However,

I have a field in a view, like so: <%= select_tag(''quoted_condition'', options_for_select([''NEW'',''RETAIL'',''OEM'',''REFURB''], ''NEW'')) %> This sets the ''selected'' value to ''NEW'' - however, I would like to have a nil value here, so I can

Hi, I have developed one application using ggmap package.It is based on google map. I am a bit confused regarding its licensing terms.I want to know that can i use it with my other applications. Is it legal? -- With Regards, Narendra Pratap Principal Research Developer Hitech Robotic Systemz Ltd. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > >>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. >> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

This is concerning an Asterisk 1.4.18 server. We have approximately 70 DID numbers. Incoming calls are placed into the "incoming" context (by zapata.conf) and are routed based on the dialed number. I want to do some manipulation (CallerID name override) to all incoming calls before they are routed. I would prefer to avoid duplicating the necessary code in each DID extension stanza,

On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> >>>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed.

Does anyone have any good or bad driver/performance/stability experiences with either: LSI Logic LSIU320 Adaptec 29320ALP-R or (or other current boards using the same driver) in Opteron servers running RHEL 4 or CentOS 4, x86_64? Thanks in advance. -- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what happened

Hello, Razvan > after that I use only the Windows interface to it (like any other > proprietary Windows software does) , GPL forbids me to do that. That's due to nature of the interface. Binary interface to codec make the proprietary application 'derived work'. > - I didn't find any commercial projects (not Operating Systems or > dual-licensed but simple

On 07/07/2011 02:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I, and many other reasonable people, consider the phrase: > > "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." > > ... to be talking about *copies of the software*. A binary is not a copy of the software, it is a lump of bits derived from it. >

I took a little foray into pricing out IP Phones for my home pbx yesterday. $75-$750 seems to be quite a range, so I took a closer look. Cisco, for example, has different models such as the 7940 and 7960 which seem to only differ in the software. And buying a Cisco 7920 should cost you $500 w/o a license, and $200 more with a license? It seems to me that these prices are substantially

On May 13, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Razvan Aciu wrote: > Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I > made some > more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I > discovered: > For now, I think for a commercial developer who wants to create a > complete > compiler toolchain using llvm, trying to package its compiler with > GCC is a

On 07/06/2011 05:13 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> The runtime library components state that they are licensed under >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php which does not >> contain a specific clause regarding binary redistribution. This seems to >> have been interpreted as not placing any restrictions

Hello, If anyone is using a TE121B card and it works reliably (i.e. no "HDLC Bad FCS" or similar errors), could you pass along the make, model, and basic configuration of your Asterisk server? We tried upgrading our old Dell PowerEdge server to a SuperMicro system, but that didn't help. I would like a solid recommendation before I suggest another purchase. Thanks. -- Kevin

My apologies if this is a bit off topic... I am going to start doing backups to removable hard drives and I will need to send these hard drives to an off-site storage facility. I am looking for some way to protect the drives after I pull them out of the system. I was hoping to find some kind of clamshell enclosure similar to what is used with external hard drives, but so far I haven't found

On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >>> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs >>> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files >>> as a

Hi, I would send an introductory e-mail to: R-foundation at R-project.org <mailto:R-foundation at R-project.org> That will facilitate further discussion on the matter and additional details can be requested offline as may be needed. Be aware that none of the R Foundation members are lawyers. So while we can perhaps offer informal and non-binding opinions, you should seek formal legal

Begin forwarded message: > From: Serge Noiraud <Serge.Noiraud at free.fr> > Date: 27 January 2008 21:17:28 GMT > To: steve at asklater.com > Subject: Mapstraction mailing list and licensing. > > Hi, > Reading the mapstraction home page, You speek about mapstraction > mailing list. > All the pointers go on the openstreetmap mailing lists and I saw the >

Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I made some more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I discovered: - from FSF it seems that packaging together a GPL application and a commercial one it is a corner case of licensing. Here is what they say: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation