similar to: Samba Team encourages supporting the Software Freedom Conservancy

"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> writes: > I'm sorry for the intrusion of a project policy discussion onto the > developer list, but there may be many here who may have thoughts, input, > or question regarding Conservancy's offer for LLVM's membership, > discussed below. If you're not interested in that topic, please feel > free to

On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:14 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> writes: >> I'm sorry for the intrusion of a project policy discussion onto the >> developer list, but there may be many here who may have thoughts, input, >> or question regarding Conservancy's offer for LLVM's membership, >> discussed below.

Hi all, You may not know, but The Software Freedom Conservancy is the legal home of the Samba project. However, most Linux-using corporations *really* hate GPL enforcement. To the point where they'll pull funding for diversity programs and try and get conference talks cancelled. I hope Samba users will help support Conservancy so it can continue doing vital work for us and other projects.

Apologies if this is a little off-topic, but the Software Freedom Conservancy (which is the legal umberella organization for the Samba Project and may other Free Software projects such as Wine) just announced their "Supporters" program: http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ Please check it out, and if you're feeling generous - join :-). Disclaimer: I'm on the Board of Directors

On Sep 18, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> wrote: > I'm sorry for the intrusion of a project policy discussion onto the > developer list, but there may be many here who may have thoughts, input, > or question regarding Conservancy's offer for LLVM's membership, > discussed below. If you're not interested in that topic, please feel

Xapian is in the process of joining the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/), but one thing we need to sort out before we can finalise this is some sort of more formal project leadership structure. James Aylett and I have discussed this with Bradley Kuhn from Conservancy, and we think the most appropriate model currently would be a small group of at least 3 (to avoid deadlock

On 9/19/12 7:47 PM, John Criswell wrote: > [snip] > >> >> This, then, creates the issue that we have LLVM sub-projects that do >> not have the same license as the main project, which in turn means we >> can't free move code between the various sub-projects and the main >> project. I know that the Address Sanitizer guys have had issues with >> this

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:04:02 -0700 Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:56 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > > > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >> We are not interested in copyright enforcement at all. In personal > >> discussions with Bradley, he mentioned that they may be able to > >> help us

On 9/19/12 6:04 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:56 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >>> We are not interested in copyright enforcement at all. In personal >>> discussions with Bradley, he mentioned that they may be able to help >>> us move the codebase to the MIT license, which would clarify

On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:56 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> We are not interested in copyright enforcement at all. In personal >> discussions with Bradley, he mentioned that they may be able to help >> us move the codebase to the MIT license, which would clarify that >> issue as well as resolve the current issues around

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > Yes, we would like to make it easier for companies and individuals to > donate money, but also we need a way to be able to spend it. The > University of Illinois is our current solution - they are capable of > accepting money and keep it in an ear-marked account, but our requests > to actually spend it (e.g. for student travel)

We are equally excited about working with you over summer. I think you missed reply by Olly on IRC, you can find it in logs here: https://botbot.me/freenode/xapian/2018-04-24/?msg=99336093&page=1 - olly icebyte[m]: i think that probably needs to go through SFC ( https://sfconservancy.org/) as the "legal entity" - 2:05 am

On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 2023-07-21 00:30, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: >> But for my business, I do not want to pay Red Hat, Zimbra, or Google >> Workspace. >> Why ? >> Because the general rule seems to be >> Oh! You are an individual, we will offer you affordable/free service >> What! You are a business, we will offer you extremely

Hi Everyone, Many tech communities, including GitHub <https://github.com/github/renaming> and Git <https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/>, have moved away from term “master branch” and replaced it with “main branch” in an effort to remove unnecessary references to slavery and use more inclusive terms. This was also discussed on the LLVM-dev mailing list

I'm using Dovecot's sieve extensions quite happily, they are very good! Thanks for all who worked on them. I have a question that maybe is appropriate for a sieve-specific discussion list, so if there is one I should post to instead, please let me know: I've poked through the sieve vacation RFC and all the documentation I can find and I cannot figure out how to do this. It's

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

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 4:53 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I notice that on https://github.com/github/renaming it says: > > """If you haven’t renamed your default branch yet, consider waiting until later > this year <https://github.com/github/renaming#later-this-year>. We’re > investing in tools to make renaming the

In the event that a lawyer is consulted, I would suggest finding one with real experience in open source law. In my experience, even most intellectual property or software attorneys have little to no experience with open source law, and I've heard the most dreadful and incorrect utterances from them on the topic of open source licenses. Duncan is correct that parts of R may be

This timing actually is likely to be more convenient for my downstreams, as most of the devs will be away.That way we can ‘ease’ into our transition with a limited number of devs being affected by it… That said, from a downstream-perspective, it looks like we’ll still be keeping ‘master’ updated for a while, right? > We will lock the master branch and change it to be readonly (with the

Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be possible Mike? From: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:03 PM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang