search for: gplv2

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it easier to adopt internationally, and is an improved version of the license to better suit the needs of Free Software in the 21st Century. To allow people to distingu...

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it easier to adopt internationally, and is an improved version of the license to better suit the needs of Free Software in the 21st Century. To allow people to distingu...

Hello everyone, I'm not sure who to ask about this, but I have a licensing question. I'm writing a utility to allow Git to connect to SMB shares, which uses libsmbclient. I was thinking about using libgit2 in my program: http://libgit2.github.com/ . This library is licensed as GPLv2 only, with a linking exception to link to any program without restriction. My understanding is that, since libsmbclient is licensed under GPLv3/later, and libgit2 is GPLv2 only, and since GPLv3 and v2 are incompatible, I can't do this without asking for permission from the copyright holders. (...

Hi, I have a licensing question: I'm curious if the fact maketree.py is GPLv2 causes any trouble for the rest of rsync (which is GPLv3 or later). -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2, citing the patent termination and indem...

...s/> says in part: "Some files are licensed under 'GPL (version 2 or later)', which includes GPL-3. See the comments in the files to see if this applies." This implies that there are files in R that do *not* have the "or later" language, and can only be used under GPLv2. I've done some initial searches for files in the R source code that don't have the "or later" language, but haven't turned anything up yet. If anybody knows of any off-hand and could point me to them, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, -- Brett Smith License Complianc...

Hello Jeremy and samba maintainers, I am using Samba 3.0.37 and I am confused about the license. On one hand both the COPYING file in the 3.0.37 tarball and your website indicates that version 3.0.37 is GPLv2. http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/ On the other hand, in the 3.0.37 tarball, there are many files with GPLv3 headers without any exception. For instance, several file in source/client directory. So my question is if it is released under GPLv2, why there are so many GPLv3 license on...

Hello everyone. Please, find the patch for Fedora 10 in the attachment(**). The distro-independent package will be put to kernel.org a bit later. I. Loading kernels from btrfs volumes Now you can load kernels and initrds from btrfs volumes composed of many devices. WARNING!!! Make sure that all components of your loading btrfs volume(*) are visible to grub. Otherwise,

...e UniMRCP project regarding the licensing issues and, after discussing the issue with them, we believe we have found a good path forward such that users of Asterisk and UniMRCP can use both projects together without violating the license of Asterisk. As you may know, Asterisk is licensed under the GPLv2. When Asterisk is statically or dynamically linked with a library, this creates an overall 'derivative work' as referred to in the GPL. Barring an exception, this means that any library Asterisk dynamically links with must be licensed under a GPLv2 compatible license. Unfortunately, UniMRCP...

...out my licensing obligation with respect to the Xapian SWIG bindings. I've got a python wrapper that sits above the standard Xapian Python/SWIG bindings, and I wasn't sure if the *intent* of the Xapian team is that my python wrapper - and any code that also uses my wrapper also falls under GPLv2. It seems unclear if the FSF's position on dynamic linking in Python constitutes 'real' linking, but I'd rather just do what the Xapian team expects. Is it (reasonably) safe to assume that the library will *not* get upgraded to GPLv3 since copyright for various pieces belong to ma...

Greetings I have found next paragraph in Licence file(source root) "Digium, Inc. (formerly Linux Support Services) holds copyright and/or sufficient licenses to all components of the Asterisk package, and therefore can grant, at its sole discretion, the ability for companies, individuals, or organizations to create proprietary or Open Source (even if not GPL) modules which may be dynamically

On 29 October 2015 at 10:25, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the previously voiced concerns of incompatibilities between the > Apache and GPLv2 license, I'd like to add one more thing. > > I work on a, at this time mostly LLVM-unrelated [1], "GPLv2 or later" > licensed compiler: the Free Pascal Compiler. Some people in the project are > vehemently opposed to the GPLv3, so a move of our project to that license >...

...get install build-essential libattr1-dev libblkid-dev libgnutls-dev libreadline5-dev python-dev autoconf python-dnspython gdb pkg-config bind9utils libpopt-dev When this command was run on 11.10 I received an error that the package libreadline5-dev was not found. As an alternative the libreadline-gplv2-dev or lib64readline-gplv2-dev were suggested, I chose the libreadline-gplv2-dev, because it was a 32 bit install, as the replacement. $ sudo ./configure.developer $ sudo make $ sudo make install $ sudo ./source4/setup/provision --realm=home.com --domain=HOME --adminpass=P at ssw0rd --server-role=...

...y 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 totally relevant to this thread, but relevant to repeating: since > the code is still GPLv2, if RedHat shares its code with me, I can still > redistribute freely, even though RedHat is not necessarily > redistributing to the general public. RedHat can not prevent me from > redistribution even though I obtained the code under a paid support > contract. (At that point RH has z...

...by allowing us to license everything uniformly under the same license. After extensive discussion on the mailing list (see the archives if you missed it), the community generally agreed with the approach, but had a major concern: Many folks believe the Apache 2 license to be incompatible with the GPLv2 license. This is problem because there are a number of important GPLv2 projects that use LLVM (e.g. QEMU) or projects that are "GPLv2 or later” but which prefer to be used under the terms of the GPLv2 license (e.g. FreePascal). This strong voice inspired us to go back and look for ways to so...

...fically, we’ve been slowly reducing the amount of Apache 2 code in FreeBSD and would be quite unhappy to suddenly increase it. LLVM is one of the largest bits of contrib code in our base system and, for us, it would be a step in the wrong direction. One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?), which limits the number of places where it can be used (though possibly not to a degree worth worrying about). A related concern is that I can read the UIUC and, as a non-lawyer, be pretty sure that I understand it. I can not make the same claim about Ap...

Hi, I want to use library of samba that license is "GPLv2" in my program that is proprietary. The source code version of samba is 3.0.6. Is it possible to modify the license to "LGPL"? Thanks.

...ntly bought an Auralic Aries Mini streamer. This little streamer can also function as a NAS when mounting a laptop drive or ssd inside, via samba. The box did not come with a media containing source code and did not include a GPL written offer. So I asked Auralic to provide the source code for all GPlv2 and v3 packages used. For the Linux kernel and their modifications, they asked to sign an NDA, which is clearly forbidden by the GPL. For Samba 3.6.23 which they use, they have no intentions to release the source, as they also have already stated on computeraudiophile.com that they only share the...

...39;ll care about all of them, as we're wanting to handle userspace apps, not just kernel code, here, right? This is the system assembler that's too old. If so, the best answer is to teach the assembler the new mnemonics. To help with that, the majority of the work for v7 was released under GPLv2, even though it didn't make it into an official binutils release until post-v3 changeover. There are GPLv2 CodeSourcery drops which contain v7 support, for example, including binutils support for unified syntax. While there are some bugs (Anton can probably give more details), they do generally...

...s via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: >> >> You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you >> get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of >> the terms of your subscription. > > Is this enforceable with the GPLv2? IIRC someone who distributes GPLv2 > source code is not permitted to restrict other people's ability to > redistribute. It could be an interesting legal test (that I don't think > CentOS should test :) ) > This gets asked every couple of months for the last 18+ years. This h...