search for: cla

...weres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember to you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels (fixed factor) = cla (R variable) plot number, 98 levels each with 4 replicates (random factor within "cla") = plotti (R variable) number of species, totally 392 counts, response variable = sp (R variable) Now, I started my analysis as follow (after the creation of the dat...

..."combined"). Within each iteration I use the following: > combined[[i]] <- performance(fit) With two iterations I get the following list, as output to a CSV: object.RMSE object.R2 object.RMSE.1object.R2.1 WA.inv 0.321543059 0.86388897 0.350494954 0.882600618 WA.cla 0.345947482 0.86388897 0.373078015 0.882600618 WA.inv.tol 0.308649941 0.874585589 0.336975196 0.89148291 WA.cla.tol 0.330038831 0.874585589 0.356895789 0.89148291 Obviously if I run thousands of iterations this continues on to the right, and the CSV files end up being too big for post-proc...

...answeres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels (fixed factor) = cla (R variable) plot number, 98 levels each with 4 replicates (random factor within "cla") = plotti (R variable) number of species, totally 392 counts, response variable = sp (R variable) Now, I startd my analysis as follow (after the creation of the data...

...015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages >>>> as well: >>>> >>>> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM. We don’t >>>> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click through) a >>>> form, and adding one is a barrier in certa...

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >> >> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages >> as well: >> >> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM. We don’t >> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click through) a >> form, and adding one is a barrier in certain situations (e.g. it >> requires...

...me=test%40test.com&domain=test.com> modifica <edit-mailbox.php?username=test%40test.com&domain=test.com> cancella <delete.php?table=mailbox&delete=test%40test.com&domain=test.com> I try to send an email to it: Oct 27 11:48:53 dns postfix/smtpd[3489]: connect from cla.mediaservice.pri[192.168.87.70] Oct 27 11:48:53 dns postfix/smtpd[3489]: D8DF2837: client=cla.mediaservice.pri[192.168.87.70] Oct 27 11:48:53 dns postfix/cleanup[3494]: D8DF2837: message-id=<49058EB2.5080208 at atpss.net> Oct 27 11:48:58 dns postfix/qmgr[2636]: D8DF2837: from=<claudio.pron...

...enberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. Please explain: why? >> 3) We could relicense all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception. > > This one I would consider a regression over the status quo. Your list is > missing &qu...

...d for the community. > (3) Revocation of copyright and patent use permissions in case of > litigation. I think this is the part about a potential move to APSL2 > that is most highly contented. That isn’t my impression. Everyone that I have spoken to is in favor of the patent termination clauses (including the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2). The only complexity I’ve heard is that it introduces is a potential compatibility issue with GPL2 (GPL3 and other licenses are fine), which is addressed by the exception clause. > I want to make sure that tho...

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided >>> that contributor agreement wouldn't...

...> Hi All, > > Can you please guide us in solving this issue. > > Version used : libvirt-1.0.6 > # rpm -qa | egrep "libvirt|qemu" > qemu-kvm-0.14.1-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.x86_64 > libvirt-1.0.6-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.2.x86_64 > > Problem : > > # virsh cpu-stats CLA-0 > error: Failed to retrieve CPU statistics for domain 'CLA-0' > *error: internal error error accessing cgroup cpuacct for vcpu* > > Related info : > > # cat /proc/cgroups > #subsys_name hierarchy num_cgroups enabled > cpuset 3...

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't address some of the legal concerns regarding "tainted" code....

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >> I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: >> >> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. > > Yes, that is the cost I mention in the email. I think it is better to > take this cost...

...s one could play with literally every legal scenario ever, no matter what is done. I'll go further: It's literally not possible to have a GPL compatible license and avoid some of these loopholes. That is the price we pay > > The Apache 2 License does nothing to prevent this, though Clause 5 of the > Apache CLA would prevent it. Actually, it does not. The Apache CLA does not, in any way, shape, or form, prevent this issue. Trust me, i answer questions about the CLA pretty much every day. > Even the CLA wouldn’t protect anyone against being sued by dubious patents > fi...

I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of a slight change we''ve made to the process for open source contributions. For *trivial* contributions, we are no longer requiring a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Note that for most contributions a CLA signature is still required. I''m also working on making the overall CLA process easier, but that will take a little more time to overhaul. You can see more about our definition of trivial and how to use the process here: http://docs.puppetlabs.com/...

...lvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> >> >> Please explain: why? >> > >> > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license >> > doesn't address some...

...t-license-and-patents> This is a long email, so I’ve broken it up into three sections: 1) The problem 2) Potential solutions 3) Recommended path forward The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. The problem We, as a community, have three major problems to solve in this space. The first two are active problems, the third is a lurking one: 1) Some contributors are actively blocked from contributing code to LLVM. These contributors have been holdin...

...at notifies the phone screen, without the user having to press any key. Anyone have any idea or tip? Thank you in advance. -- Daniel Varella de Oliveira Consultor de T.I. Cel.: +55(21)8615-6050 Digium Certified Asterisk Administrator - (dCAA) Novell Certified Linux Administrator (Novell CLA) & Novell Data Center Technical Specialist (Novell DCTS) SUSE Linux Enterprise 11 Linux Professional Certified - LPI Information Technology Infrastructure Library - ITIL Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate - CCNA

...path = /usr/local/share/Apps/NetApps > inherit permissions = yes > writeable = yes > > [Windsor] > path = /usr/local/share/Windsor > inherit permissions = yes > writeable = yes > > [Career] > path = /usr/local/share/Staff/CLA/Career > inherit permissions = yes > writeable = yes > comment = Career Programs > > [Office] > path = /usr/local/share/Office > writeable = yes > inherit permissions = yes > > [Admin] > path = /usr/local/share...

I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. 2) The apache CLA in general gives too much power (e.g. the power to relicense arbitrarily going forward) to the organization (in this case, llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>) which can deter contributions from folks who...

...hreads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a contribution can be made. 2. The Apache CLA is the only widely available one, but it is unsuitable for LLVM’s goals because it allows a project to relicense contributions. 3. Some contributors are significantly concerned with the Apache CLA, partially because of #2, but there are other concerns. Losing contributors would be unfortunate. 4...