search for: gpl

...ver/nouveau Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: campbell+fd.o-bugzilla at mumble.net QA Contact: xorg-team at lists.x.org As I understand it, the nouveau drm kernel component is meant to be available under the X.Org permissive (`MIT') licence OR the GPL v2(+). It looks like in 2017, Greg KH ran a script over all the files without explicit copying notices and added `SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0' to them, in commit b24413180f5600bcb3bb70fbed5cf186b60864bd. This included a lot of nouveau source files, particularly header files which didn...

...ncies http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Finance.html http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Econometrics.html [herrold at centos-5 ~]$ for i in zoo xts TTR quantmod opentick \ IBrokers ; do rpm -q R-$i \ --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release} \t %{license} \n' ; done R-zoo-1.6-1orc GPL-2 R-xts-0.6.5-1orc GPL-3 R-TTR-0.20-1orc GPL-3 R-quantmod-0.3.9-1orc GPL-3 R-opentick-0.1.2-1orc GPL-3 R-IBrokers-0.2.1-1orc GPL-3 [herrold at centos-5 ~]$ These are all fine, with GPL licenses, but some of them have dependencies (or sub-dependencies) on packages, which...

...an, side of > > the Atlantic I believe > > > > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions. > > OK, great. That clears it up then. Maybe this helps: The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD code under the GPL. This was e.g. explained by Theo de Raath some years ago already. The result was that Linux people did remove the GPL header from all BSDd Linux source files that have not been 100% written by the same person that added the GPL header. The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD lice...

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid > > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked > > against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could not > > legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs. > > You c...

I intend to submit a newly developed package to CRAN (to be licensed under the GPL), which prompted me to re-read the GPL FAQ. The following section caught my attention: > If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? > > When the interpreter just inter...

...Red Hat customer paying for that product >> >>> (but don't take my word for it). >> > ... >> >> I agree for the format of release (SRPM), but in any case Red Hat >> >> should provide the sources for the changes, as the kernel is >> >> GPL-2.0 Then one can manually try to merge them in a patched >> >> kernel in some way... Gianluca >> > >> > Redhat of course complies with the GPL and provide source to the >> > customers that get access to the binary packages. They are not >> > required...

I know the standard answer to this kind of question is "get legal advice from a lawyer", but I would like to hear the (hopefully informed) opinion of other people. I would say that, according to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, any R code using GPL packages can be distributed legally only using GPL-compatible licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the > interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl...

...ked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk) On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: | Aside from R there are the add-on packages. | | A frequency table showing the licenses of the CRAN packages indicates | that the all or almost all packages have some sort of free software license | with GPL licenses being most common. (A few packages have restrictions | to noncommercial use and that may conflict with GPL, not sure.) That is | not to say that there are no other types of packages but any such packages | are not on CRAN. I fear that is not quite the case. There are quite a few packag...

Dear R-users, I'm developing a package that heavily depends on another package released under the GPL-2 license. In addition, some few functions depends on other packages released under the following licences (as described in the corresponding pages of http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/): GPL GPL >=2. I want to release my package under a GPL >= 2 license, and after reading the section...

...or EUS kernels. >>> You might if you're a Red Hat customer paying for that product (but >>> don't take my word for it). > ... >> I agree for the format of release (SRPM), but in any case Red Hat >> should provide the sources for the changes, as the kernel is GPL-2.0 >> Then one can manually try to merge them in a patched kernel in some >> way... Gianluca > > Redhat of course complies with the GPL and provide source to the > customers that get access to the binary packages. They are not required > to provide the sources to anyone el...

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and > release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :( ??? Actually, you _can_. You just can't link it into the GPL kernel program. [ I'm not posting this to cross you. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. ] There is nothing in the GPL that prevents a GPL compiler from producing non-GPL code. And LGPL can be statically linked against non-GPL compatible code. So that means the OpenAFS _server_, which i...

For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement is bogus but you still want to keep the...

I intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who would want to use it in proprietary applications could pay for a license (thus financing the work on the CMS) ? W...

Hi list, I've read the GPL and have som questions regarding incorporating GPL tools in other software. Lets say that I make an Webbapplication that on some occasions uses a GPL tool i.e nmblookup or rpcclient how much of my code do I need to release under the GPL? Only the code interacting with the tool or all of it...

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm wron...

Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum. mdowle > It appears that ParallelR (packages foreach and iterators) is only available bundled with the Enterprise edition. Since R is GPL, and ParallelR is derived from R, should...

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code > > freely combinable with other OSS. > > Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's > whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an > incompatible license which obviously prevents a...

I would appreciate some help with this. I read the GPL license and basically it says you can do whatever you want with the software (sell, modify) as long as you include the source code, the License and make any changes you make available in the same manner to all others. My questions is this: If I develop an external application (say a Call Center ap...

Just FYI, MySQL stuff has been pulled from Asterisk since apparently now the client libraries are under GPL and not LGPL (and thus are incompatible with OpenH323). You may check out the MySQL code under "asterisk-addons", but you should not use both MySQL and OpenH323 (OpenSSL is also questionable) in the same Asterisk installation unless you downgrade your MySQL client libraries to a version...

...it seems, specifically covering this angle. In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can write R packages that include functions implemented in C (and hence are provided in native libraries linked to R.dll) and distribute them under licenses not compatible with GPL. This was achieved by making the relevant header files available under the LGPL. This was an explicit change that was made in February 2001, and the intention was to allow for DLLs that require the API header files for compilation and are linked against R.dll to not be "infected" with the...