My manager is wanting me to change the namespaces of the ORM support classes and the SQL Server DQE assemblies to reflect our corporate brand as opposed to using the current SD.LLBLGen.Pro root namespaces. I really could care less, but he's the boss...

Anyway, in the EULA it says that the libraries are royalty free but there's no mention about renaming the root namespaces. Would renaming the assemblies be a problem in regards to intellectual property, etc?

Thanks!

that would give a problem because that suggests your company wrote the libraries, which isn't the case.

What happens if you reference a 3rd party control library? I'm pretty sure no control vendor wants you to rename any of their dlls as well.

(edit) We had some internal discussion about this, triggered by your post. Let me get back to you on this.

I totally agree with you, that it would seem to be giving credit where it isn't due. I've had some conversations in passing about it saying that to be fair to you guys that we leave the assembly names as is. This question is mainly to do my due diligence for my manager. I would rather leave this as they are.

Honestly, if there's any issue about it that would give me more ammunition to say that we can't. I don't want to bend over backwards to accomodate a request like this from my boss so don't feel like you need to either.

colinhumber wrote:

I totally agree with you, that it would seem to be giving credit where it isn't due. I've had some conversations in passing about it saying that to be fair to you guys that we leave the assembly names as is. This question is mainly to do my due diligence for my manager. I would rather leave this as they are.

Honestly, if there's any issue about it that would give me more ammunition to say that we can't. I don't want to bend over backwards to accomodate a request like this from my boss so don't feel like you need to either.

The current set of sourcecode files for the DQE come as BSD2 licensed, however the sourcecode of the ORMSupportclasses aren't properly licensed. We more or less give access to them to customers so they can make changes to the code if the code doesn't behave as they expect or want extra features/changes we don't build into the code. We've acknowledged the lack of a proper license for the sourcecode and will add one for the v2 sourcecode.

In this v1 sourcecode batch, changing the namespaces would suggest you wrote the code, which isn't the case. I hope that's enough for you

That's perfect. Having you say that'll make it easier to convince my boss there's no point to renaming the DLLs. Didn't make much sense in the first place anyway...