We have ML 7 (Essential Enterprise - Production) license and wants to use Semantic capabilities of MarkLogic.
As per MarkLogic pricing documentation http://www.marklogic.com/what-is-marklogic/pricing/ 'Semantic' is in option category. However, we have run couple of Semantic functions like sem:rdf-builder, sem:rdf-parse etc. to check it and these functions are running fine.
Do we still need to update our existing license to use Semantic? Is there any other way to find out our existing license capabilities.
Please give your suggestions.
Contact your friendly MarkLogic support/after-sales person to discuss your specific license requirements or needs. The Semantics stuff is listed as 'option' and broken into about 7 lines. So no one but the vendor can answer your question specifically..
And with that out of the way, My personal thought is that if you have the triple index on, then you are absolutely using Semantics features. Also, your use-case includes using sem:rdf-builder - which creates a MarkLogic specific, triple - which would infer that you are edging on using the semantic features for sure. And lastly, the sem library is namespaced as http://marklogic.com/semantics - more of a hint that its time to call MarkLogic for clarity.
MarkLogic doesn't restrict access to features nor are their license keys tied to specific nodes. It's not possible to tell if you have the license you need within the product, you have to refer your license.
Some MarkLogic licenses include Semantics at no additional charge (Developer Edition, AWS Hourly, some bundles, etc.)
If you are consistent in applying the proper license key to the proper envirorments according to the terms of the licenses, then the host status page can be used to see what options are under that license. But the key isn't the license - the signed license agreement is the license.
The triple index can be present without a Semantics license. Sparql queries or use of sem: API requires the option. Performance History, which is not a separately licensed option, uses the triple index.
Related
I am trying to find a database with scientific papers which will allow me to:
1. Get metadata of papers by doi (including abstracts);
2. Do this stuff regularly (e.g. daily updated);
3. Ability to download whole existing database.
I know about Crossref API, however, only 3% of all publications presented have abstract (and none of biggest publishers like Springer or Elsevier provide them). On the other side I see some projects like Dimensions or Researcher which already implemented mentioned functionality. So the question is: does somebody know such services (possibly not free) and had experience working with them?
Have you looked at Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/)? They have an API that supports the first of your requirements (http://api.semanticscholar.org/) and also provide the "Open Research Corpus" (http://labs.semanticscholar.org/corpus/) which should satisfy your third requirement. It is a smaller database than what is provided by Scopus or Web of Science, but both of those require subscriptions to fully use their APIs and don't (as far as I know) have a real way for you to purchase a full download of the database.
we are planning to use InstallShield for your product build. Unfortunately, I was not able to find explicitly written if you can use InstallShield and all his components after 1 year of usage.
I am aware of the fact that it works like it for most of software (you only lose right for support and updates) but I need to be sure. (I was able to find the information explicitly written for all other software we tend to use or with help of their support.)
I also tried to contact InstallShield support but it seems that without Maintenance subscription you cannot ask anything and browsing their forum only confused me more.
This depends on the license you purchase. Most licenses for InstallShield are perpetual licenses: once you buy it, you are entitled to use it forever. Some licenses with explicit term lengths on them do expire. Note that the licensing implementation expects to connect to the server periodically, and if it cannot do so it will believe the license has expired.
FYI, these questions are probably easier to ask of a sales representative than of the support team.
For WordPress's sister project BuddyPress, we are looking for relatively-reputable resources that manage a list of countries and regions. Due to the WordPress OpenSource philosophy, we are only seeking GPL-compatible resources.
If no such resources exist, we could possibly consider GPL-compatible services as well.
Or there could possibly be a GlotPress-like service (see http://translate.wordpress.org/projects/wp/dev) wherein the community contributes and maintains the database which can be downloaded via a link or API.
So far all the databases/services I have found have either been commercial or otherwise incompatible with GPL.
It seems unfortunate to set off on another data collection effort when there are already volunteers world-wide contributing to the GeoNames collection that is available under a Creative Commons license. Does BuddyPress really want to get into the business of maintaining administrative area data that are always changing?
I agree GeoNames is a good resource. I would also bring up OpenStreetMap, which is under an Open Data Commons Open Database License (see http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/).
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 looking at oracle liecense, it looks cheap for named user plus. I mean if I develop a web application in which user has no interaction with database other than registering and logging in and if I make a virtual user inside server to do all these things that is get user name and password from users ect. keep them in queue and execute database commands one by one. Will I need more than one named user plus for this, I am total noob in oracle and web field , i m just a designer who is learning server side technologies so if this question is invalid please let me know why.
Named user licensing is not the best option in this situation - Oracle considers the web application a multiplexing device and will require you to track the users of the application and purchase a named user license for each of them.
[Edit]
I see that you've received some good additional licensing information in the other answers, but in short an Oracle schema != an application user. Years ago I was unlucky enough to be the POC for an unwelcome audit by Oracle and for our intranet application I was required to report distinct IP addresses connecting to the application from the web server.
Oracle licensing is a labyrinth which few people understand. Even most Oracle employees won't discuss it because it's so complicated. In fact there are almost as many consultants making a living from offering licensing advice as there are from tuning the actual databases.
So the following is just an opinion, and you definitely should not use it as the basis of a business plan.
If your web application is for an intranet you could purchase a Named User Plus license, because you should be able to identify each and every user of your application. But if your application is going on the Internet with an unknown and unknowable userbase you will need to buy Per Processor licenses.
Oracle has a complicated mechanism for licensing multi-core processors. It very much depends on which platform and type of chip we're using. It is an area of licensing which Oracle revises on a regular basis, as they try to come to terms with multi-core CPUs. It used to be that pretty much everything was 0.75; as Zendar points out, it is now the case that many configurations are licensed at 0.5 per core. Oracle always round up, so if we have a single dual-core CPU which attracts a 0.75 per core multiplier it will still cost us two Per Processor licenses, but a quad-core will only cost three. Find out more.
One thing to bear in mind is that if you application has quite lightweight DB requirements - that is, less than 4GB of application data, suitable to run on a single CPU (single core) - you can use the Express Edition for free, for any purpose.
One more thing: licenses apply to all databases, not just those in produvction. So you need to factor in the cost of licensing your development and test environments as well.
With regards to that last point Zendar cites the OTN Download license. That outlines what we can do with products we have downloaded from OTN. The problem with the OTN Download license is made clear in Oracle's explanation of Database Licensing:
"This limited license gives the user
the right to develop, but not to
deploy, applications using the
licensed products. It also limits the
use of the downloaded product to one
person, and limits installation of the
product to one server."
So: if we're a one-man operation (no dog) we can develop an application using the OTN Download license. But if we want a team of developers sharing a database we need a Full Use license. And once we're supporting an application in production we need a Full Use license for the maintenance (formerly development) environment.
The other consideration is this: if we want support and patches for our development environment then we need a proper license.
I said it was a labyrinth.
Oracle for a long time have price list published on its website. So, there is no any secret there.
There you will find their definition of "Named user plus".
Short interpretation: named user plus is every individual and/or device that accesses database.
You can buy per processor license or per named user, pick one that suites you better (be careful with processor license - Oracle have some formula for counting processor cores - check price list and Oracle Processor Core Factor Table)
Regarding APC-s answer - all Intel and AMD chips have core factor 0.5 - meaning 1 processor license per 2 cores.
Development license for Oracle RDBMS products states:
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.
So, you can download Oracle product and use it for developing, testing, prototyping and demonstrating your application. Well, not really. See below edit.
Disclaimer: I am not and have never been Oracle employee or Oracle reseller. Information here is my interpretation of documents freely available on Oracle website. I worked with Oracle products, they are far from perfect, but anyway I don't like misinformations especially if correct information is available.
Edit:
RE APC's comment:
Yep. You are right. It's restrictive as you wrote in your answer.
I reread license agreement. Few sentences after the one I quoted above says:
The programs may be installed on one computer only, and used by one person in the operating environment identified by us.
So, OTN development licence is practically useless for majority of developers.
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
Which of the licensing options for the Ext JS library will apply if I use it in our in-house company CMS?
Take a look at this quote from Planet MySQL - GPL and Javascript:
[...] The whole story becomes a bit more
complicated when GPL is applied to a
javascript library. When users are
using the library, they will download
HTML, CSS images and the javascript
library. The first thing to realize is
that you are distributing the code. It
was on your server and now it on the
computer of the user. This gives any
user the right to look at the
javascript code and reuse it for
another project. This means that you
can’t obfuscate the javascript code
and people can copy/paste it for there
own use. This probably how you
currently look at javascript anyway.
But how about the HTML, CSS and
images, can that be publicly used? No
it can’t. Those items aren’t code as
defined in the GPL license, it should
be considered data. Therefor GPL
doesn’t ally to that part of the
application.
A web application will probably not
only have client side code, it will
also have a part on the server in the
form as PHP (or JSP, or Ruby, or ..)
scripts. The big question is, do we
need to release that part as well
(under GPL license). Although we as
developers think of the client and
server part being 2 parts of the same
application, GPL does not. When using
AJAX, the client code is interacting
with the server. However you can
compare it to any other client/server
application. This may be interpreted
as 2 applications between which data
is transfered, therefor both may have
different license. This is called the
‘ASP loophole’ and is as an error by
some. When GPLv3 was drawn up, a clear
decision was made to not close this
loophole.
As with regards to whether or not internal usage constitutes distribution, this is from the GPL FAQ:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
So IANAL, but I'd say you'd be pretty safe to use a GPL'd javascript library for internal systems, and even if you start exposing it to the rest of the world, the only restriction that applies is that if you use GPL'ed javascript libraries in your front end code, you'd have to make unobfuscated versions of your javascript files available. If you only use ExtJS for the admin area (and the admin area is only accessed by your employees) you'd still be clear of the distribution clause of GPL, the way I understand it.
Interestingly, there's another version of GPL called AGPL, which tries to close this "loophole".
The GPLv3 will apply unless you buy a commercial license. That is to say, unless you buy a commercial license, your company needs to agree to distribute the software to anyone to whom you distribute a copy of any part (ie. by sending it over to their browser) and otherwise comply with the terms of the GNU GPLv3.
Now, if this is only going to be used by employees of your company, and you don't mind giving your employees copies of your internal-only software (and, potentially, permission to personally redistribute the same), you may not mind being bound by the GPLv3. Ask your lawyer for their opinion as to whether letting employees use the software when acting as agents of the company requires licensing them a copy which they can redistribute when not acting as agents of the company -- my personal interpretation is that it doesn't, but I'm not a lawyer, cannot give legal advice, am not giving legal advice, and may well be wrong anyhow.
Bottom line: if you license your software under the GPLv3 and comply with that license, you're fine deriving from Ext; the GPL doesn't require you to distribute your source to anyone you haven't distributed any portion of the derived work to, so if it's truly in-house and never leaked (even via third-party folks downloading copies of the javascript files into their web browser), you may well be OK -- but find out what your management and legal council are comfortable with!
Now, if you (or your corporate lawyer) isn't comfortable with that (and not being comfortable with that would not be particularly surprising!), you can buy a commercial license. They're pretty reasonably priced, especially if you're buying them on a per-developer basis for only a small number of people.
According to the official license information, if you are going to derive a commercial advantage from your CMS, you are required to purchase the appropriate number of commercial licenses, unless you distribute your source code with a GPL license. In other words, you are not required to purchase commercial licenses for Ext even if you make a profit on your CMS, as long as you make your source code available under a GPL license.
http://extjs.com/products/license.php
http://extjs.com/company/dual.php