search for: licensed

...b3bb70fbed5cf186b60864bd. This included a lot of nouveau source files, particularly header files which didn't have any explicit copying notice. Can these be converted to say `GPL-2.0 OR MIT'? We use these files downstream in NetBSD and I would like to update them, but since NetBSD is BSD-licensed, I'm nervous about kernel components that look like they might be GPL. The following list is taken from Linux 4.19-rc2: dispnv04/cursor.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 dispnv04/disp.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ include/nvif/cl0002.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ inc...

...;> >> >> >> Copyright, License, and Patents >> =============================== >> >> .. note:: >> >> This section deals with legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We >> are not lawyers --- please seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney. >> >> This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for the LLVM >> project. The copyright for the code is held by the contributors of >> the code. The code is licensed under permissive `open source licensing terms`_, >> namely the Ap...

...urther clarified or if you have any other questions and comments. Thanks! -Chris Copyright, License, and Patents =============================== .. note:: This section deals with legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers --- please seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney. This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for the LLVM project. The copyright for the code is held by the contributors of the code. The code is licensed under permissive `open source licensing terms`_, namely the Apache 2 license, which includes a copyright an...

...License, and Patents >>>> =============================== >>>> >>>> .. note:: >>>> >>>> This section deals with legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We >>>> are not lawyers --- please seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney. >>>> >>>> This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for the LLVM >>>> project. The copyright for the code is held by the contributors of >>>> the code. The code is licensed under permissive `open source licensing...

Adjust almost all the license headers to point to the GNU website instead of the FSF postal address. 3rd party code copies are unchanged. Spotted by Rpmlint. --- v1 is: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-September/msg00079.html Makefile.am | 3 +-- autogen.sh | 3 +-- bash/Makefile.am | 3 +--

Hi all, R-exts currently requests that package authors don't include copies of standard licenses: > Whereas you should feel free to include a license file in your source distribution, please do > not arrange to install yet another copy of the GNU COPYING or COPYING.LIB files but > refer to the copies on https://www.R-project.org/Licenses/ and included in the R distribution > (in

...=============================== >>>>>> >>>>>> .. note:: >>>>>> >>>>>> This section deals with legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We >>>>>> are not lawyers --- please seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney. >>>>>> >>>>>> This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for the LLVM >>>>>> project. The copyright for the code is held by the contributors of >>>>>> the code. The code is licensed under p...

...END LICENSE ------ Entering the license details: 1. Open Sublime Text, and select Help/Enter License from the menu. 2. Copy the license above (including the BEGIN LICENSE and END LICENSE lines) and paste them into the license box. 3. Press the Use License button and Sublime Text will enter into licensed mode. Regards, Jon SUBLIME HQ PTY LTD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20151005/9cb0bc6e/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... U...

...have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to >>>>> recognize >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ >>>> >>>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think >>>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be >>>> "public domain". The first two examples I found: >>>> >>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 &...

...BSD License" -> http://www.xiph.org/licenses/bsd/speex/ "Sample Xiph.Org Variant of the BSD License" -> http://www.xiph.org/licenses/bsd/ "Xiph.org's BSD license" -> http://flac.sourceforge.net/developers.html "The reference implementation libraries are licensed under Xiph's variant of the BSD License, a.k.a. the Xiph License. This is a trivial variation of the popular BSD License where the Xiph.org Foundation is substituted for the University of California, Berkeley. In simple terms, these libraries may be used by any application, Open or proprietary,...

In prepping our next release, we noticed that the LICENSE.TXT files were still all copyrighted 2015. I've done a bit of archaeology and it looks like the files to update are: cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT clang-tools-extra/trunk/LICENSE.TXT compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT libclc/trunk/LICENSE.TXT libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT libcxxabi/trunk/LICENSE.TXT lld/trunk/LICENSE.TXT llvm/trunk/LICENSE.TXT

By analogy with maintainer(), I suggest extending license() to give the licensing terms of packages as well as R itself when prompted. Below is a small patch in that direction. This won't break anything and imposes no significant maintenance burden; it has the advantage of making it ever so marginally easier to know package licenses. Given the existence of license forms like GPL >=2, I

...hen CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN >>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize >>> it. >> >> >> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ >> >> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think >> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be >> "public domain". The first two examples I found: >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 >> >> https://tracker...

R: This stems from my curiosity about the previous thread about a request for glm.nb code. The issue of package licenses was brought up and I was hoping for some clarification on that. Using the function license() or licence() gives info on the license for R, but something like license(MASS) does not give info on the license for the MASS package (perhaps it might be good to expand the

...SF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize > it. Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6...

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....

Hello, CentOS team and everyone who cares about CentOS, Huawei release an Euler OS, which is an distribution based on CentOS. http://developer.huawei.com/ict/en/site-euleros/euleros-introduction According to CentOS's statement, CentOS is distributed under the GPLv2 License. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7.4.1708/os/x86_64/EULA The GPL license requires the modified version to be

The bulk SPDX addition made all these files into GPL-2.0 licensed files. However the remainder of the project is MIT-licensed, these files (primarily header files) were simply missing the boiler plate and got caught up in the global update. Fixes: b24413180f5 (License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license) Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirk...

...Foundation software is covered by -the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to +the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. - - GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE + + GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION...

Dear All, I would like to propose adding the OSL-3.0 license to the list of "standard" licenses bundled with R: Index: share/licenses/license.db =================================================================== --- share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733) +++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy) @@ -317,3 +317,12 @@ URL: