search for: agpl

...ev: OSL +Version: 3.0 +SSS: OSL-3.0 +FSF: free_and_GPLv3_incompatible ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL) +OSI: open (http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0) +URL: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf +FOSS: yes The great advantage of OSL is that it's similar to AGPL in the means of requesting the derivative works to be published with an open source license even if the program is not distributed, only used in a network service -- which is more and more common nowadays. But AGPL is not supported by bunch of companies (like Google) due to that license might seem...

...erformant, with strongly ACID transactions, and replication (to ensure transaction serialization performance, updates are done on a single node and propagated; if ACID transactions are not important, there are other ways to propagate updates between nodes). YottaDB is 100% FOSS, licensed under AGPL v3 with a clarification (https://gitlab.com/YottaDB/DB/YDB/-/blob/master/LICENSE) that software which uses YottaDB is not considered a covered work. So if you make changes to YottaDB itself, your changes must follow AGPL v3, but if you write software that uses YottaDB, you can use any license?...

...I always get: * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING Non-standard license specification: What license is it under? Last time I just used "GPL" and it worked, this time it doesn't ... I tried the following character strings: GPL GPL-2 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1 LGPL-3 AGPL-3 Artistic-1.0 Artistic-2.0 all with the same results. Thanks in advance, Ove [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...not equal what the law sees as an additional restriction on the code. The restriction is on the support contract you have with Red Ha which is not promised in the GPL as being a right you have. The only licenses which do provide that amount and more requirements are code which are covered under the AGPL. > --keith > > -- > kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Stephen J Smoogen.

So this is just a general question, Is Asterisk really good? Reliability? Functionality? Customization's? I am coming from a Nortel world, were you pay for everything, and you can't delve into the software. But it seems that customization would be a great thing. Like, setting up a war-dialer to customer lists, incoming/outgoing faxes (that's possible with Asterisk, right?) and

...gh in preventing users from accessing packages that they may not be able to access and use under the terms of the license file. Ultimately, this may mean moving some packages to a 'non-free' repository tree as well. I'd love to hear comments and concrete suggestions. Dirk | AGPL (>3.0), with attribution as per LICENSE file | 1 | AGPL 3.0 (with attribution) | 1 | Apache Lic...

...ing R Extensions": > > The string ?Unlimited?, meaning that there are no restrictions on > distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including > copyright laws). > > If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using > GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be > placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or ?+ > file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the > corresponding individual license specification. > ... > Please note in particular tha...

...(other for installations, customization, or even custom derivations, etc), but at the same time we need to distribute some commercial software to cover developer's salaries, rents, marketing, business growth, etc. Now, my question(s) is as follows: Can I sell one script as GPL, but another as AGPL, or even BSD under the same company name? And if these 2 are tied together (i.e. being able to be used together, although seperate programs / script - for example Apache + PHP), how would I license them? We are writing a series of PHP + MySQL based scripts which can be used on the internet, either...

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: >> >> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R >> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >> > > That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks > that it's a

...ed?, meaning that there are no restrictions on >>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including >>> copyright laws). >>> >>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., >>> using >>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should >>> be >>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or >>> ?+ >>> file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the >>> corresponding individual license specific...

Dear all, from "Writing R Extensions": The string ?Unlimited?, meaning that there are no restrictions on distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including copyright laws). If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or ?+ file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding individual license specification. ... Please note in particular that ?Public domain? is no...

On 06/15/2018 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified >> source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > Not

...> >> The string ?Unlimited?, meaning that there are no restrictions on >> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including >> copyright laws). >> >> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using >> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be >> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or ?+ >> file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the >> corresponding individual license specification. >> ... >> Please no...

...not until Q4 2020 at the latest estimate: https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/11/07/3.0-update/ Probably the majority of uses of Xapian are web-related, and if Xapian is running on the server and the code isn't being distributed the copyleft provisions of the GPL don't kick in anyway. (AGPL would address that, but we concluded we didn't want to make the licence more restrictive.) And there's also other FOSS software which fulfils a broadly similar role to Xapian and isn't GPL-licensed. So we concluded many years ago that we'd like to be able to relicense eventually....

...rictions on > >>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws > (including > >>> copyright laws). > >>> > >>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., > >>> using > >>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms > should > >>> be > >>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? > (or > >>> ?+ > >>> file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the > >>> corres...

...icense changes, we can''t easily protect against license infringement (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html ), no one can ever dual license, and essentially no commercial software can ever be produced that integrates with Puppet. 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non- exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single organization with a license for all copyright, and allows that license holder (Reductive Labs) to protect against license infringement, provide pa...

Hola buenos días, una pregunta que quiero realizar de R sobre el tema de la licencia y que me inquieta un poco, a ver si alguien me la puede responder de un modo suficientemente claro o referirme a algún sitio donde informarme porque yo por el momento estoy un poco liado. Imaginemos el siguiente ejemplo. Una empresa crea un software totalmente basado en R para comercializarlo o alguien realiza

...n programa con R debe especificar qué tipo de licencia tiene su obra y así podremos actuar en consecuencia. Hay casos que son muy claros, por ejemplo si publicas un paquete en CRAN estás licenciando tu código de una manera determinada (es una de las exigencias de CRAN) .. creo recordar que son GPL, AGPL, BSD, MIT, ... Otra cosa es si haces un programa y no lo pones a disposición de la Comunidad (sólo permites su uso, por ejemplo)... por eso es TAN importante especificar la licencia de las obras. De la misma manera, tendrías derecho a exigirle el código fuente si estuviésemos hablando de software...