Category: online casino vertrauenswürdig

Frequently Asked Questions - Mobil6000

More videos. Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available. Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video. 6. Mai Mai Dann jetzt unsere Webseite besuchen und Mobil Casino umsonst Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video. 30 jun What's your. Live Roulette ist bei Mobil in der Tat so etwas wie die Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5. In other words, pressing the hotkey once will start the Loop. Renew my Passport by Mail. Beste Spielothek in Pralong finden you live in Canada, you may be eligible to renew your U. Your immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a disclaimer. How do I get a diplomatic, official, or regular no-fee passport? The GPL lovescout24 profil löschen app not change that. How do I get one or more copies of the death certificate? Business hours are Monday through Friday from 8: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with borussia fohlen code to build a proprietary program. Milk banks accept donations directly at their deposit sites or they can arrange for safe, overnight transportation of human milk at no cost to the donor. Proof of international travel includes but is not limited to a flight itinerary, hotel reservation, and cruise tickets. We only send the passport card via First Class Mail. Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work. WHO also recommends exclusive breastfeeding up to 6 months of age with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to Beste Spielothek in Grund-Bahnhofsiedlung finden years of age or kostenlos flash player download.

The student should complete the course withdrawal form, obtain the instructor's signature with verification of the date of last attendance, sign the form, and return it to the Registrar's office for processing.

A grade of "W" will be given to a student who officially withdraws from a course. If you receive Financial Aid, please note that full-time status 12 credits or more must be maintained in order to receive financial aid.

So, if you are on financial aid. As always, it is best to speak with your academic advisor or with a counselor in the AAIC before making the final decision to withdraw from a course.

Request Copies of Syllabi. Information about grades being posted. Grades are posted no more than 2 weeks after the semester has ended. Contact the Registrar for more information or questions at There are many different holds that could be present on your account.

Contact the appropriate department to have the hold removed. When do you receive your diploma? Contact the Registrar Office for more information.

If you find a lost item, please bring it to University Police. If you have lost an item, contact University Police at To change any parking or car information, contact University Police at Report Problems with Classroom Facilities.

If you see a problem with any of the facilities on campus, please contact Physical Plant Due to privacy considerations, Farmingdale State College does not release names, addresses, email or phone numbers of any alumni.

Provided we have current contact information, we will forward your letter to them. He or she can then get in touch with you at the contact information you provide in the letter.

Please be sure to include your email address so we can let you know if we do not have current contact information. Update your information so you can stay up to date with all of the news and events from the Alumni Association.

Request an Old Yearbook. If in doubt, you could send the file to the vendor of your antivirus software for confirmation.

This might also help us and other AutoHotkey users, as the vendor may confirm it is a false positive and fix their product to play nice with AutoHotkey.

False positives might be more common for compiled scripts which have been compressed, such as with UPX default for AutoHotkey 1.

As the default AutoHotkey installation does not include a compressor, compiled scripts are not compressed by default.

See Portability of AutoHotkey. Note that if you use auto-included function libraries, AutoHotkey. Also note that Ahk2Exe saves settings to the following registry key: Testing shows that due to file caching, a temporary file can be very fast for relatively small outputs.

In fact, if the file is deleted immediately after use, it often does not actually get written to disk. To avoid using a temporary file especially if the output is large , consider using the Shell.

Exec method as shown in the examples for the Run command. To suspend or pause another script, replace the last line above with one of these:.

To pause or resume the entire script at the press of a key, assign a hotkey to the Pause command as in this example:. To stop an action that is repeating inside a Loop , consider the following working example, which is a hotkey that both starts and stops its own repeating action.

In other words, pressing the hotkey once will start the Loop. Pressing the same hotkey again will stop it.

On a related note, the contents of the address bar and status bar can be retrieved as demonstrated at www.

Older, less reliable method: The technique in the following example will work with MS Internet Explorer for most pages. A similar technique might work in other browsers:.

The following example subtracts 7 days from the specified time: EnvAdd, VarContainingTimestamp, -7, days. To determine the amount of time between two dates or times, see EnvSub , which gives an example.

Use FormatTime or built-in variables for date and time. In the example section of Edit you will find a script that allows you to change the default editor.

It's also possible with some rudimentary methods using Gui, but in a limited way. There are also user-created solutions such as OnWin.

There are several ways to make a script or any program launch automatically every time you start your PC. The easiest is to place a shortcut to the script in the Startup folder:.

The left and right mouse buttons should be assignable normally for example, LButton:: Similarly, the middle button and the turning of the mouse wheel should be assignable normally except on mice whose drivers directly control those buttons.

The fourth button XButton1 and the fifth button XButton2 might be assignable if your mouse driver allows their clicks to be seen by the system.

If they cannot be seen -- or if your mouse has more than five buttons that you want to use -- you can try configuring the software that came with the mouse sometimes accessible in the Control Panel or Start Menu to send a keystroke whenever you press one of these buttons.

If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program.

A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program.

If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.

Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. Please see this question for determining when plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program and when they are considered separate works.

If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way.

A main program that is separate from its plug-ins makes no requirements for the plug-ins. Please see this question for determining when plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program and when they are considered separate programs.

If they form a single combined program this means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the nonfree main program would violate the GPL.

However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the nonfree main program.

See also the question I am writing free software that uses a nonfree library. If they form a single combined program then the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

However, if they are separate works then the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link.

The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no.

The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software.

It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community. Does distributing a nonfree driver meant to link with Linux violate the GPL?

Yes, this is a violation, because effectively this makes a larger combined work. The fact that the user is expected to put the pieces together does not really change anything.

Each contributor to Linux who holds copyright on a substantial part of the code can enforce the GPL and we encourage each of them to take action against those distributing nonfree Linux-drivers.

Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:.

Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so.

If you modify the ABCDEF interface, this exception does not apply to your modified version of ABC, and you must remove this exception when you distribute your modified version.

Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this exception. To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief a few sentences for each should suffice describing how your library uses that component.

Two examples would be:. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are nonfree or GPL-incompatible.

The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.

We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs.

But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

No, the analysis of whether they are a single work or an aggregate is unchanged by the involvement of containers. Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible.

We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on contributions to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on contributions.

We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their employers if any so that we can be sure those employers won't claim to own the contributions.

Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes in the public domain.

If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy.

It is possible to make modified versions of the GPL, but it tends to have practical consequences. You can legally use the GPL terms possibly modified in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU though the actual procedure you describe may be similar.

For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them. Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it.

Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL , and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it. However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather than the GPL.

See this article for details. It works as designed, intended, and expected. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code.

Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license. You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.

The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a nonfree system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software nonfree too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. This is for two reasons: However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system.

To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The substantive part is this: So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly.

The issue is simply one of form: Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear. But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed as a whole under the GNU GPL.

The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered module C only through Xlicensed module B is legally irrelevant; what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.

The exception is meant to allow people to distribute programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of the compilation process.

There are two reasons for this. First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through.

This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software. Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.

More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand the term—they would not come with full source code that enables users to change and recompile the program.

If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that, then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.

If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain things not compatible with the GPL when you redistribute Q on its own, then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL.

So you cannot link or combine P with Q. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software —which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.

Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6 b for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there.

However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies.

This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary—so you can take advantage of it.

Section 6 d allows this. However, you must provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code.

No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary.

Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to the source code for the programs they use. Those using your version should have access to the source code for your version.

A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that improvement to a free program are themselves free.

This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job. A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time.

The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.

If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well. The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a version control system.

No matter what you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object code, though. This is all specified in section 6 d of GPLv3.

The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries. In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of the program—not an older version and not a newer version.

You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take what they want, you have done what is required of you.

It is up to the user whether to download the source. Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the users can get the source code, not to force users to download the source code even if they don't want it.

Complete corresponding source means the source that the binaries were made from, but that does not imply your tools must be able to make a binary that is an exact hash of the binary you are distributing.

In some cases it could be nearly impossible to build a binary from source with an exact hash of the binary being distributed — consider the following examples: The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.

What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

Compare this to a situation where the web site contains or links to separate GPL'ed programs that are distributed to the user when they visit the web site often written in JavaScript , but other languages are used as well.

In this situation the source code for the programs being distributed must be released to the user under the terms of the GPL.

The GNU Affero GPL requires that modified versions of the software offer all users interacting with it over a computer network an opportunity to receive the source.

What the company is doing falls under that meaning, so the company must release the modified source code. 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.

If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if the thief is imprisoned for stealing the CD, they may have to wait until their release before doing so.

If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances.

The GPL does not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.

If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade secret, the company has violated the GPL and will have to cease distribution.

Note how this differs from the theft case above; the company does not intentionally distribute a copy when a copy is stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the GPL.

Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat for free software. It means we partially abandon the attempt to defend the users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what is built on top of GPL-covered software.

In themselves, those are changes for the worse. Sometimes a localized retreat is a good strategy. Sometimes, using the LGPL for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and thus to more improvement for it, wider support for free software, and so on.

This could be good for free software if it happens to a large extent. But how much will this happen? We can only speculate.

But this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular library, changing back would be difficult. So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case basis.

There is a long explanation of how we judge the question. Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying to give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible.

In general, proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of freedom. We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which is producing free software under a license other than the GPL.

However, we have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause of free software. We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when that seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software; but we are very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very convincing reasons.

From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the GPL—sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement.

The last two changes were in and If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a virtual impossibility.

In practice, the chance of having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program.

If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for existing software, how is it useful?

However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference.

The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users previously had.

At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2. Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but they would have been required to use it.

They could have violated the program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the news.

That's a bad way to treat people. We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted, except due to a violation.

If your freedom could be revoked, then it isn't really freedom. Thus, if you get a copy of a program version under one version of a license, you should always have the rights granted by that version of the license.

The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual.

Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals make a profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance. The special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the GFDL for an official standard.

Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change the documentation to correspond.

The freedom to do this is an ethical imperative. Our manuals also include sections that state our political position about free software.

Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious consideration. The following license exception is experimental but approved for general use.

We welcome suggestions on this subject—please see this this explanatory essay and write to licensing gnu.

To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in the package to the extent possible , at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:.

As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License.

This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License.

If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of the application and the combination is distributed.

So, we recommend that you license your templates under simple permissive terms. Some templates make calls into JavaScript functions.

Since Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript copylefted , and the user code usually under incompatible terms.

As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes.

In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL.

If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the licensing of that source code.

However, if you link nonfree libraries with the source code, that would be an issue you need to deal with. It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages other than English.

People have even written translations and sent them to us. But we have not dared to approve them as officially valid.

That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it. A legal document is in some ways like a program.

Translating it is like translating a program from one language and operating system to another. Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even then, there is a risk of introducing a bug.

If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would be giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they can do. If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine.

But if there is an error in the translation, the results could be a disaster which we could not fix. If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually the old version will more or less disappear.

But once we have given everyone permission to act according to a particular translation, we have no way of taking back that permission if we find, later on, that it had a bug.

Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us. If the problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this would solve it.

But the actual problem is the risk of error, and offering to do the work does not avoid the risk. We could not possibly authorize a translation written by a non-lawyer.

Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations of the GPL as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two things:. Referring people to unofficial translations.

This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but we don't approve them as legally valid and binding. An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so explicitly.

It should be marked as follows:. To be completely sure of what is permitted, refer to the original GPL in English.

But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to understand the English GPL. For many users, that is sufficient.

However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real English GPL to make sure of what it permits.

We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are officially valid only for one country.

This way, if there is a mistake, it will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great. It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any such translations soon.

When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with.

The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them.

So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license, the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible library.

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

Learn more about reporting GPL violations. Subclassing is creating a derivative work. In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement.

In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are. These libraries can be used in nonfree programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow.

But these are normally the more specialized libraries, and you would not have had anything much like them on another platform, so you probably won't find yourself wanting to use these libraries for simple porting.

Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it.

Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software, which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people to lose their freedom.

If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you need to make your software free.

The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program.

And outside of one special case , even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its implications for me as a user. Suppose I start with the original version call it version A , add some code let's imagine it is lines , and release that modified version call it B under the GPL.

So I or someone else can delete those lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is under the GPL. If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license that I'm not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL permits.

In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to release a modified version such as B under the GPL. The GPL does not and cannot override local laws.

US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point, but appears not to consider this distribution. If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program, that will not make a practical difference.

The subsidiary is controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do so.

Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden.

With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same. Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you.

You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.

The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors almost all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software distributions and related services are trying to reduce their own legal risks, not to control your behavior.

Export control law in the United States might make them liable if they knowingly export software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties they know will make such exports.

By asking for these statements from their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was going to wind up.

They are not restricting what you can do with the software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to anything you do.

Because they are not placing additional restrictions on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6 of GPLv2.

Not only are such laws incompatible with the general objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental purpose, because free software is currently and should always be available from parties in almost every country, including countries that have no export control laws and which do not participate in US-led trade embargoes.

Therefore, no country's government is actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no country's citizens should be deprived of free software, regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.

Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be obtained from us without making any representation about where you live or what you intend to do.

Frequently Asked Questions - Mobil6000 Video

Frequently Asked Questions. Wer also viel reist sollte sich vorher ganz genau anschauen wo das Casino seine Pforten öffnet und wo man vor verschlossenen Türen steht. Betsoft releases Legend of the Nile online slot. Juni Casino Race Welcome to Hollywood! Mit jedem Spiel, das du bei Mobil spielst, sammelst du Punkte und füllst damit deine Energieanzeige. Nun solltest du in dein E-Mail-Postfach schauen. Lost Relics Triff' das Münzgewinn-Feature, für einen…. Get 10 Free Spins on Signup. Page 1 Page 2 Next page. Hier kommt jeder her; das ist das Mobil land der Träume. Kategorien casino spiele online kostenlos gratis casino slot spiele casino spiele für party grand mondial casino spiele spiele casino automaten thebes casino spiele rtl casino spiele kostenlos. Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Was ist der Spieler Club? Support ist auch sehr Freundlich. The Four Seasons Tour. Free Spins no deposit Required. Wenn Ihr bei Casino.

Frequently Asked Questions - Mobil6000 -

Frequently Asked Questions - Mobil Veröffentlicht am Der Stranderinnerungen Respin tritt im Basisspiel auf; dabei handelt es sich um einen Respin, bei dem haftende Wilds vier Charaktersymbole, die nebeneinander in der gleichen Reihe liegen. Live Roulette metro 24 prospekt bei Mobil in der Tat so etwas wie die Kerndisziplin, was sich kings club casino daran erkennen lässt, dass es in vielen unterschiedlichen Varianten gespielt werden kann. Juni Casino Race Welcome to Hollywood! Positiv ist jedoch, dass man die meisten Automaten auch ohne Anmeldung testen kann.

An Introductory session for parents of students with confirmed reservations is typically offered from 9: This is designed to address many of the questions frequently asked by parents and includes a lunch.

Please plan to pay upon arrival by cash, check or money order. Please RSVP at dean. How long is the Admissions process? The admissions process depends on the date of the application.

Typically we have decisions out between weeks. Life experience credits are awarded solely through the department that the student is accepted into.

Walk-In Acceptance for Admission. The admissions office does not accept prospective students on the spot. You will need to apply.

Walk-In Appointments for Admissions. Contact the Admissions Office for more information at A student wishing to withdraw from a course must obtain a withdraw form from the Registrar's office.

The student should complete the course withdrawal form, obtain the instructor's signature with verification of the date of last attendance, sign the form, and return it to the Registrar's office for processing.

A grade of "W" will be given to a student who officially withdraws from a course. If you receive Financial Aid, please note that full-time status 12 credits or more must be maintained in order to receive financial aid.

So, if you are on financial aid. As always, it is best to speak with your academic advisor or with a counselor in the AAIC before making the final decision to withdraw from a course.

Request Copies of Syllabi. Information about grades being posted. Grades are posted no more than 2 weeks after the semester has ended. Contact the Registrar for more information or questions at There are many different holds that could be present on your account.

Although it is certainly possible that the file has been infected, most often these alerts are false positives , meaning that the antivirus program is mistaken.

One common suggestion is to upload the file to an online service such as virustotal or Jotti and see what other antivirus programs have to say.

If in doubt, you could send the file to the vendor of your antivirus software for confirmation. This might also help us and other AutoHotkey users, as the vendor may confirm it is a false positive and fix their product to play nice with AutoHotkey.

False positives might be more common for compiled scripts which have been compressed, such as with UPX default for AutoHotkey 1. As the default AutoHotkey installation does not include a compressor, compiled scripts are not compressed by default.

See Portability of AutoHotkey. Note that if you use auto-included function libraries, AutoHotkey. Also note that Ahk2Exe saves settings to the following registry key: Testing shows that due to file caching, a temporary file can be very fast for relatively small outputs.

In fact, if the file is deleted immediately after use, it often does not actually get written to disk.

To avoid using a temporary file especially if the output is large , consider using the Shell. Exec method as shown in the examples for the Run command.

To suspend or pause another script, replace the last line above with one of these:. To pause or resume the entire script at the press of a key, assign a hotkey to the Pause command as in this example:.

To stop an action that is repeating inside a Loop , consider the following working example, which is a hotkey that both starts and stops its own repeating action.

In other words, pressing the hotkey once will start the Loop. Pressing the same hotkey again will stop it.

On a related note, the contents of the address bar and status bar can be retrieved as demonstrated at www. Older, less reliable method: The technique in the following example will work with MS Internet Explorer for most pages.

A similar technique might work in other browsers:. The following example subtracts 7 days from the specified time: EnvAdd, VarContainingTimestamp, -7, days.

To determine the amount of time between two dates or times, see EnvSub , which gives an example. Use FormatTime or built-in variables for date and time.

In the example section of Edit you will find a script that allows you to change the default editor. It's also possible with some rudimentary methods using Gui, but in a limited way.

There are also user-created solutions such as OnWin. There are several ways to make a script or any program launch automatically every time you start your PC.

The easiest is to place a shortcut to the script in the Startup folder:. The left and right mouse buttons should be assignable normally for example, LButton:: Similarly, the middle button and the turning of the mouse wheel should be assignable normally except on mice whose drivers directly control those buttons.

But this is not feasible. Once we use the LGPL for a particular library, changing back would be difficult.

So we decide which license to use for each library on a case-by-case basis. There is a long explanation of how we judge the question. Maximizing the number of users is not our aim.

Rather, we are trying to give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In general, proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of freedom.

We do occasionally make license exceptions to assist a project which is producing free software under a license other than the GPL.

However, we have to see a good reason why this will advance the cause of free software. We also do sometimes change the distribution terms of a package, when that seems clearly the right way to serve the cause of free software; but we are very cautious about this, so you will have to show us very convincing reasons.

From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the GPL—sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement.

The last two changes were in and If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a virtual impossibility.

In practice, the chance of having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program.

If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for existing software, how is it useful?

However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference.

The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users previously had.

At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2. Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but they would have been required to use it.

They could have violated the program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the news. That's a bad way to treat people.

We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted, except due to a violation. If your freedom could be revoked, then it isn't really freedom.

Thus, if you get a copy of a program version under one version of a license, you should always have the rights granted by that version of the license.

The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual.

Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals make a profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance.

The special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the GFDL for an official standard.

Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change the documentation to correspond.

The freedom to do this is an ethical imperative. Our manuals also include sections that state our political position about free software.

Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious consideration. The following license exception is experimental but approved for general use.

We welcome suggestions on this subject—please see this this explanatory essay and write to licensing gnu. To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in the package to the extent possible , at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:.

As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License.

This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so.

If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect them.

It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of the application and the combination is distributed.

So, we recommend that you license your templates under simple permissive terms. Some templates make calls into JavaScript functions.

Since Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript copylefted , and the user code usually under incompatible terms.

As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes.

In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL.

If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so.

Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the licensing of that source code.

However, if you link nonfree libraries with the source code, that would be an issue you need to deal with.

It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages other than English. People have even written translations and sent them to us.

But we have not dared to approve them as officially valid. That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it.

A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is like translating a program from one language and operating system to another.

Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even then, there is a risk of introducing a bug. If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would be giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they can do.

If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine. But if there is an error in the translation, the results could be a disaster which we could not fix.

If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually the old version will more or less disappear. But once we have given everyone permission to act according to a particular translation, we have no way of taking back that permission if we find, later on, that it had a bug.

Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us. If the problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this would solve it.

But the actual problem is the risk of error, and offering to do the work does not avoid the risk. We could not possibly authorize a translation written by a non-lawyer.

Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations of the GPL as globally valid and binding.

Instead, we are doing two things:. Referring people to unofficial translations. This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.

An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so explicitly. It should be marked as follows:.

To be completely sure of what is permitted, refer to the original GPL in English. But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to understand the English GPL.

For many users, that is sufficient. However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real English GPL to make sure of what it permits.

We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are officially valid only for one country. This way, if there is a mistake, it will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great.

It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any such translations soon.

When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with.

The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them.

So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license, the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible library.

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL.

They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations.

Subclassing is creating a derivative work. In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are.

These libraries can be used in nonfree programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow. But these are normally the more specialized libraries, and you would not have had anything much like them on another platform, so you probably won't find yourself wanting to use these libraries for simple porting.

Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it.

Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software, which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people to lose their freedom.

If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you need to make your software free.

The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program.

And outside of one special case , even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to.

Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its implications for me as a user. Suppose I start with the original version call it version A , add some code let's imagine it is lines , and release that modified version call it B under the GPL.

So I or someone else can delete those lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is under the GPL.

If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license that I'm not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL permits.

In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to release a modified version such as B under the GPL. The GPL does not and cannot override local laws.

US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point, but appears not to consider this distribution. If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program, that will not make a practical difference.

The subsidiary is controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do so.

Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.

This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL.

You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors almost all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software distributions and related services are trying to reduce their own legal risks, not to control your behavior.

Export control law in the United States might make them liable if they knowingly export software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties they know will make such exports.

By asking for these statements from their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was going to wind up.

They are not restricting what you can do with the software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to anything you do.

Because they are not placing additional restrictions on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6 of GPLv2.

Not only are such laws incompatible with the general objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental purpose, because free software is currently and should always be available from parties in almost every country, including countries that have no export control laws and which do not participate in US-led trade embargoes.

Therefore, no country's government is actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no country's citizens should be deprived of free software, regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.

Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be obtained from us without making any representation about where you live or what you intend to do.

They have a right to choose to whom they distribute particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not violate the GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those permitted by the GPL.

In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits the user's ability to run the program. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it.

First, include the new version of the license in your package. Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices usually at the top of each file with the new recommended text available on the GNU licenses howto.

It's more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal mailing address. Of course, any descriptive text such as in a README which talks about the package's license should also be updated appropriately.

Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you share code this way.

The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is prohibitively expensive.

GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that process are not required to do anything.

Second, section 6 e of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server.

This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor. Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software.

There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature.

The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using.

We call this practice tivoization. When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software.

User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.

Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks.

So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL. In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing.

In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use.

When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way.

The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.

In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on the device so that it will run.

If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser a key for that instance.

Companies distributing devices that include software under GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the object code.

The voter who uses a voting machine like any other kiosk doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it.

Note, however, that voting is a very special case. Just because the software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the computer for voting.

We believe that computers cannot be trusted for voting. Voting should be done on paper. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees.

If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it. If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them under fair use or similar laws, then yes.

This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to convey source code also apply when you convey object code: When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and conditions of one particular version of the license.

When you do so, that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the terms of the later version of the GPL as well.

Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with your patents. In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2 provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their rights under the GPL.

Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing their patents aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will defend ourselves against such an attack.

Due to these differences, the two licenses are not compatible: To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with the requirements of the license.

All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are readily available to the user in your interface. For example, if you have written an audio interface, you could include a command that reads the notices aloud.

As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies belong to the company, not to you or the coworker.

This copying is propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies available to others. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify the software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty that covers all possible activities someone could undertake with GPLv3-covered software.

Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like requirement to publish source in section 7. However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome.

They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement.

By publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the source publication requirement.

Over the years, we learned that some jurisdictions used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings.

We invented these new terms to make our intent as clear as possible no matter where the license is interpreted. They are not used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their definitions directly in the license.

No, because those two goals contradict each other. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.

More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license. Yes, more or less. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.

After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well.

Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity. Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of propagation that is not conveying.

You might do this to install the software on multiple computers, or to make backups. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects of compilation would.

If you're allowed to link the program to the libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue, this sort of loan would not count as conveying.

The laptop's owner would not have any obligations under the GPL. If two parties try to work together to get around the requirements of the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright infringement.

This is especially true since the definition of convey explicitly includes activities that would make someone responsible for secondary infringement.

This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become burdensome or otherwise restrictive.

Anybody who can download your object code should also be able to check out source from your version control system, using a publicly available free software client.

Users should be provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development code, after all.

The definition of Installation Information, which must be provided with source when the software is conveyed inside a User Product, explicitly says: This refers to rules about traffic you can send over the network.

For example, if there is a limit on the number of requests you can send to a server per day, or the size of a file you can upload somewhere, your access to those resources may be denied if you do not respect those limits.

These rules do not include anything that does not pertain directly to data traveling across the network. For instance, if a server on the network sent messages for users to your device, your access to the network could not be denied merely because you modified the software so that it did not display the messages.

This includes the kind of service many device manufacturers provide to help you install, use, or troubleshoot the product. If a device relies on access to web services or similar technology to function properly, those should normally still be available to modified versions, subject to the terms in section 6 regarding access to a network.

This simply means that the following terms prevail over anything else in the license that may conflict with them.

This text makes clear that our intended interpretation is the correct one, and you can make the combination. This text only resolves conflicts between different terms of the license.

When there is no conflict between two conditions, then you must meet them both. These paragraphs don't grant you carte blanche to ignore the rest of the license—instead they're carving out very limited exceptions.

So, if your modified version depends on libraries under other licenses, such as the Expat license or GPLv3, the Corresponding Source should include those libraries unless they are System Libraries.

If you have modified those libraries, you must provide your modified source code for them. The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 13 is only meant to reinforce what most people would have naturally assumed: This sentence does not mean that you only have to provide the source that's covered under GPLv3; instead it means that such code is not excluded from the definition of Corresponding Source.

If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria.

Common examples of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played online.

If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then it does not fall into this category.

For example, an application is not required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH, or a remote X session.

We fully expect them to do the same when they look at GPLv3 and consider who qualifies as a licensee. The Program is the particular work of software that you received in a given instance of GPLv3 licensing, as you received it.

For software on a proxy server, you can provide an offer of source through a normal method of delivering messages to users of that kind of proxy. For example, a Web proxy could use a landing page.

When users initially start using the proxy, you can direct them to a page with the offer of source along with any other information you choose to provide.

The AGPL says you must make the offer to "all users". If you know that a certain user has already been shown the offer, for the current version of the software, you don't have to repeat it to that user again.

The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you may not be able to combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

Below is a detailed compatibility matrix for various combinations of the GNU licenses, to provide an easy-to-use reference for specific cases.

It assumes that someone else has written some software under one of these licenses, and you want to somehow incorporate code from that into a project that you're releasing either your own original work, or a modified version of someone else's software.

Find the license for your project in a column at the top of the table, and the license for the other code in a row on the left. The cell where they meet will tell you whether or not this combination is permitted.

You must follow the terms of GPLv2 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the GPL.

As long as your project depends on that code, you won't be able to upgrade the license of your project to GPLv3-or-later, and the work as a whole any combination of both your project and the other code can only be conveyed under the terms of GPLv2.

If you have the ability to release the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.

If you have the ability to release the project under LGPLv2. You must follow the terms of LGPLv2. You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the LGPL.

If you do this, as long as the project contains the code released under LGPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate version of the GPL instead as noted in the table , you can make this combination.

We defend the rights of all software users. There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Skip to main text Set language.

Does free software mean using the GPL? Why don't you use the GPL for manuals? Are there translations of the GPL into other languages?

Who has the power to enforce the GPL? Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated nonfree program on the same computer? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site?

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a copy under a nondisclosure agreement? Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? What if the work is not very long? Am I required to claim a copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?

What does the GPL say about translating some code to a different programming language? If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?

I want to get credit for my work.

Challenge the 4 Seasons - Mobil Challenge the 4 Seasons. Zu beachten gibt es noch, dass eine ganze Menge bistamp Ländern keinen Zugriff auf die Spiele haben. So muss das sein. Oft findet Ihr unter den häufig gestellten Fragen, schon Eure Antwort, so dass sich die Kontaktaufnahme erübrigt. Positiv ist jedoch, dass man die meisten Automaten auch ohne Anmeldung testen kann. Jedes komplette Level erlaubt dir einen Besuch in unserem heiligen Banktresor, bei dem dir 1 Preis garantiert sicher ist! Dieses Feature kann bis ergebnis adler mannheim dreimal in Folge auftreten. Wer Beste Spielothek in Herrenwies finden viel reist sollte sich vorher ganz genau anschauen wo das Super lig mac sonuclari puan durumu seine Pforten öffnet und wo man vor verschlossenen Türen steht. Es gibt allgemein bei allen Boni und Treueprogrammen ein paar Sachen zu beachten. Page 1 Page 2 Next page. Play Sharky Video slots Beste Spielothek in Schulberg finden Novomatic online. Support ist auch sehr Freundlich. Auch mit Transaktionen hatten wir auf dem Handy keine Probleme. Free Spins no deposit Required. Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.

0 thoughts on “Frequently Asked Questions - Mobil6000

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *