The game is the ultimate development in the Falcon series from Spectrum HoloByte that began in 1984. HoloByte had acquired MicroProse in 1993, and started using that name for all of its titles in 1996. After MicroProse was purchased by Hasbro, official development ended. In 2000, a source code leak allowed continued development of the game by members of the gaming community, including bug fixes and new campaigns.[2] Many of these additions were collected by Lead Pursuit, which arranged an official license of the original code base from the owner Atari; these were published as Falcon 4.0: Allied Force in 2005.[3] Spanning well over a decade, the Falcon 4.0 series is one of the longest running game series using the same code base in PC history.[4]
sudo /Applications/Falcon.app/Contents/Resources/falconctl license 0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV-WXFor macOS Big Sur 11.0 and later, after providing your CID with the license command, you will be asked to approve the system extension on each host:
Falcon 4 Source Code License Key
Commonly used in 3D printers, home-built CNC machines and kit-style or DIY lasers, g-code controllers use a text based command format called g-code, and are often open source hardware and firmware, like GRBL, Smoothieware, or Marlin. They are usually a bare board, and often used in open-frame diode lasers like the EleksMaker, Ortur, AtomStack, TwoTrees, NEJE Master, XTool D1, and FoxAlien, as well as XCarve, Shapeoko, or 3018 CNC machines. They are also often used as replacements for the stock controller in the common K40 laser. (Please note that LightBurn does not support the M2 Nano controller that comes stock in most K40 lasers)
Careful legal review is required to determine if a given license is really an open source software license. The following organizations examine licenses; licenses should pass at least the first two industry review processes, and preferably all of them, else they have a greatly heightened risk of not being an open source software license:
In practice, nearly all open source software is released under one of a very few licenses that are known to meet this definition. These licenses include the MIT license, revised BSD license (and its 2-clause variant), the Apache 2.0 license, the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) versions 2.1 or 3, and the GNU General Public License (GPL) versions 2 or 3. Using a standard license simplifies collaboration and eliminates many legal analysis costs.
No. At a high-level, DoD policy requires commercial software (including OSS) to come with either a warranty or source code, so that the software can be maintained when necessary by the supplier or the government. Since OSS provides source code, there is no problem.
Open source software that has at least one non-governmental use, and is licensed to the public, is commercial software. If it is already available to the public and is used unchanged, it is usually COTS.
Software licenses, including those for open source software, are typically based on copyright law. Under U.S. copyright law, users must have permission (i.e. a license) from the copyright holder(s) before they can obtain a copy of software to run on their system(s). Authors of a creative work, or their employer, normally receive the copyright once the work is in a fixed form (e.g., written/typed). Others can obtain permission to use a copyrighted work by obtaining a license from the copyright holder. Typically, obtaining rights granted by the license can only be obtained when the requestor agrees to certain conditions. For example, users of proprietary software must typically pay for a license to use a copy or copies. Open source software licenses grant more rights than proprietary software licenses, but they are still conditional licenses that require the user to obey certain terms.
Thankfully, such analyses has already been performed on the common OSS licenses, which tend to be mutually compatible. Many analyses focus on versions of the GNU General Public License (GPL), since this is the most common OSS license, but analyses for other licenses are also available. Resources for further information include:
This does not mean that the DoD will reject using proprietary COTS products. There are valid business reasons, unrelated to security, that may lead a commercial company selling proprietary software to choose to hide source code (e.g., to reduce the risk of copyright infringement or the revelation of trade secrets). What it does mean, however, is that the DoD will not reject consideration of a COTS product merely because it is OSS. Some OSS is very secure, while others are not; some proprietary software is very secure, while others are not. Each product must be examined on its own merits.
The U.S. government can often directly combine GPL and proprietary, classified, or export-controlled software into a single program arbitrarily, as long as the result is never conveyed outside the U.S. government. However, this approach should not be taken lightly. This approach may inhibit later release of the combined result to other parties (e.g., allies), as release to an ally would likely be considered distribution as defined in the GPL. In some cases, export-controlled software may be licensed for export under the condition that the source code not be released; this would prevent release of software that had mixed GPL and export-controlled software. When taking this approach, contractors hired to modify the software must not retain copyright or other rights to the result (else the software would be conveyed outside the U.S. government); see GPL version 3 section 2, paragraph 2 which states this explicitly. Where possible, it may be better to divide such components into smaller components in a way that avoids this issue.
Proprietary COTS is especially appropriate when there is an existing proprietary COTS product that meets the need. Proprietary COTS tend to be lower cost than GOTS, since the cost of development and maintenance is typically shared among a larger number of users (who typically pay to receive licenses to use the product). Unfortunately, this typically trades off flexibility; the government does not have the right to modify the software, so it cannot fix serious security problems, add arbitrary improvements, or make the software work on platforms of its choosing. If the supplier attains a monopoly or it is difficult to switch from the supplier, the costs may skyrocket. What is more, the supplier may choose to abandon the product; source-code escrow can reduce these risks somewhat, but in these cases the software becomes GOTS with its attendant costs.
No; this is a low-probability risk for widely-used OSS programs. A primary reason that this is low-probability is the publicity of the OSS source code itself (which almost invariably includes information about those who made specific changes). Any company can easily review OSS to look for proprietary code that should not be there; there are even OSS tools that can find common code. A company that found any of its proprietary software in an OSS project can in most cases quickly determine who unlawfully submitted that code and sue that person for infringement.
Government employees may also modify existing open source software. If some portion of the software is protected by copyright, then the combined software work can be released under a copyright license. (See next question.)
Consider anticipated uses. If it must work with other components, or is anticipated to work with other components, ensure that the license will permit those anticipated uses. In particular, will it be directly linked with proprietary or classified code?
In general, LPRNet is a sequence classification model with a tuned ResNet backbone. It takes the image as network input and produces sequence output. Then, the license plate is decoded from the sequence output using a CTC decoder based on a greedy decoding method.
Note: Choosing Proceed starts the analysis process for the source code. The progress window in the CAST Console shows each step of the analysis process, and displays a notification when the analysis is complete.
Legal Report Trademark Abuse VideoLAN, VLC, VLC media player and x264 are trademarks internationally registered by the VideoLAN non-profit organization. VideoLAN software is licensed under various open-source licenses: use and distribution are defined by each software license.
If your API is built in a common framework, such as Falcon (Python) or Rails (Ruby), your code already has everything needed to create a Swagger or OpenAPI description. Look for an existing project that creates an API definition based on an existing API. For example, zero-rails_openapi gem is a Rails solution and falcon-apispec does the same for Falcon. You can also create API descriptions from code comments using a tool built by the ReadMe team.
There could be many reasons it's not possible to reference source code. In that case, you might use a service like Optic to listen to live API traffic. After reviewing live requests and responses, Optic can output an OpenAPI or Swagger file.
Finally, another option is to make small updates to comments in your code. Using the oas Node module, you can generate your definition from inline YAML. This is a ReadMe open source tool and we use it internally to document APIs from code.
Your Swagger or OpenAPI files can use similar processes to keep documentation and other API resources updated. In fact, if your API description is stored alongside your API code, your documentation can be deployed alongside the API it supports.
Code ObfuscationIf you're not using license signing with asymmetric encryption then last step is to obfuscate your code. Whatever you will do they'll be able to see your code, check your algorithm and workaround it. So sad, you're deploying instructions manual! Obfuscate with an Obfuscator if you want but what I strongly suggest is to move your license check in a less obvious place. 2ff7e9595c
Comments