search for: lgpl

Hey guys, I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can. >From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in: > A program that c...

...What exactly are you trying to do? What compiler are > you using? H IV0, we are using a lot of different cross-compiler (mainly based on GCC 3.4.x) When I tried to cross-compile FLAC for non-i386 platforms (such as ARM), I use use "configure" in the following way: (cd ~/UPnPTVStack/lgpl-code/flac-1.1.2; make distclean; ./configure --host=armv5b-softfloat-linux --disable-shared CC=/opt/crosstool/gcc-3.4.1-glibc-2.2.5/armv5b-softfloat-linux/bin/armv5b-softfloat-linux-gcc CXX=/opt/crosstool/gcc-3.4.1-glibc-2.2.5/armv5b-softfloat-linux/bin/armv5b-softfloat-linux-g++ LDFLAGS=-lpthr...

Hello, I am new to Cortado and I am very interested in playing video in some of my Java applets using the Theora decoder. I would like to write a LGPL library to use the decoders in Processing (see processing.org). I prefer LGPL over GPL because it allows a wider usage of the library. The core libraries of Processing are released under LGPL as well. I would like to use com.fluendo.plugin and com.fluendo.jheora which are LGPL, but the problem is...

I can't understand what version of the LGPL you are using for the Wine source code. > Wine is free software. The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License. There are 2 links in your main page: the first links to the official LGPL v3 page http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html the second links to a page of the WineHQ si...

...ry functions and I am trying not to box myself out of this future option. It is my understanding that if I use the GPL license, all work based on my packages would have to take on the GPL license (effectively making it impossible to sell software). It looks like the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) may suit my needs by allowing me to make public my current work without eliminating the possibility of future proprietary work. I have a couple questions I am hoping somebody can answer. - It says that "libraries" licensed under a LGPL can be used by proprietary software. What...

...s 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 GPL. However the Rembedded.h header file isn't included in the list in the...

I've started working on a pure-java port of Theora under the LGPL, as a subproject of FMJ, the open-source implementation of JMF. It is similar to and dependent on the jogg/jorbis libraries from jcraft. The Cortado implementation is nice, but since it is GPL, that is too restrictive for FMJ, which is LGPL. This is, naturally, a large undertaking, and any he...

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Looks cool Talin. > > Personally it would be nice if it was checked into llvm.org, but is > wxWidgets LGPL like license > an issue for llvm's repository? > There should be no problem with the license. wxWidgets is indeed distributed under a modified version of the LGPL (with a special exception to allow people to distribute binaries of their app without requiring the source). The LGPL allows...

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:03:05AM -0800, Yandell, Henri wrote: > We?re looking into using Hivex and came across something odd. While > the license of hivex.c is LGPL 2.1, it appears to require the GPL > 3.0 licensed gnulib package for a few minor functions ( full_read, > full_write and c_toupper ). There are also a few GPL 3.0 build > files. It has always been our intention to allow hivex to be used from both proprietary and free software, and so the...

...gt; 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 is user-space, can be built with GPL GCC and dynamically linked against LGPL GLibC. But the OpenAFS _client_, which is kernel-space, cannot be statically linked into the GPL kernel program. [ I be...

...9;s smbclient utility linked against the shared library for test. The perpose is to use in gnome virtual filesystem. It is currently used statically linked into midnight commander when configure'd --with-samba. The code is unmodified, only repackaged. This message is posted because it needs LGPL to legally use it. location: wget http://members.home.com/wroberts1/libsamba.tgz There is outated smblib, but my package uses 2.0.5a code, and automake and libtool for portable library building.

We spent a little time here taking a look at the Vorbis licensing scheme and ran into some possible issues. In particular, the Vorbis FAQ page here says that the LGPL license applies to Vorbis libraries and GPL applies to source code (at least that's what I gather). http://www.vorbis.com/faq.html#flic http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html Reading the text of these Gnu licenses implies that we cannot compile the source code into our exec...

On Feb 12, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Talin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Looks cool Talin. > > Personally it would be nice if it was checked into llvm.org, but is wxWidgets LGPL like license > an issue for llvm's repository? > > There should be no problem with the license. wxWidgets is indeed distributed under a modified version of the LGPL (with a special exception to allow people to distribute binaries of their app without requiring the source). The LGPL...

...ation copyright ownership). Certainly for easily-contactable entities, we know who contributed to which file, and indeed could figure out ownership down to the change level. It strikes me that, given many of the current contributors to Xapian are agreed in principle in a bright and shiny future of LGPL licensing, having everyone expressly license their contributions under the LGPL might be a helpful thing. It wouldn't get us any closer to changing the license (which still requires replacing or removing all code that cannot be relicensed), but it will prevent us from getting any further away f...

My company recently started using a R library from RCRAN that is licensed under the LGPL Version 2 or greater per the DESCRIPTION file, but contains no copy of the LGPL notice, or any copyright notice. I've grown accustomed to paying attention to copyright and licensing as a Debian package maintainer, and sent the author of the package an email expressing my concern. The author bel...

Please be patient and read this... Can AJ please change the license of the wine-launcher (like mono does)? You can still keep the libraries under LGPL. Please note proprietary is not bad and no oss w/o proprietary... You can make WINE a standard of binaries because of competition of Linux/BSD/Solaris binaries. It would be good for OS developers if you Change the license of the WINE launcher. Trans-gaming (and others) will not change libs anymore...

...e no changes to the libraries so thats not a problem. As far as I can see as 'linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library ' means that anything that links the Vorbis Libaries is covered by section 6. of the LGPL which states I must 1) Allow modification and reverse engineering (but I don't have to make it easy) 2) supply a copy of the LGPL and give clear notice that the libraries are used. 3) do one of... a)Include the Vorbis source code for and the .o file for the 'work' (so the heade...

There's a problem with the license for ltdl.c when building with VC++. It is under the LGPL, with a special exception: As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built using GNU libtool, you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. The problem is,...

Hi Andrey, 2016-01-23 4:02 GMT+01:00 Andrey Gursky <andrey.gursky at e-mail.ua>: ... > If they don't want to bother with just discussing, why would they take a > big effort to claim? And your proposition for LGPL is not very > different in opposite to BSD or public domain. Yes, I agree. The risk of having a future lawsuit against my project would be pretty small if I relicensed it as LGPL. It is such a small project and it is the LGPL license we're talking about. But I would like to do this the righ...

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 wrong). This seems incompatible, as per (http:/...