search for: licenses

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107874 Bug ID: 107874 Summary: Incorrect SPDX-License-Identifier on various nouveau drm kernel source files? Product: xorg Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: NetBSD Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium

...roject, because contributors do not have to fear that their >> code will be used in a way with which they disagree. >> >> Relicensing >> ----------- >> >> The last paragraph notwithstanding, the LLVM Project is in the middle of a large >> effort to change licenses, which aims to solve several problems: >> >> * The old licenses made it difficult to move code from (e.g.) the compiler to >> runtime libraries, because runtime libraries used a different license from the >> rest of the compiler. >> * Some contributions were not sub...

.... We feel that a high burden for relicensing is good for the project, because contributors do not have to fear that their code will be used in a way with which they disagree. Relicensing ----------- The last paragraph notwithstanding, the LLVM Project is in the middle of a large effort to change licenses, which aims to solve several problems: * The old licenses made it difficult to move code from (e.g.) the compiler to runtime libraries, because runtime libraries used a different license from the rest of the compiler. * Some contributions were not submitted to LLVM due to concerns that the p...

...eir >>>> code will be used in a way with which they disagree. >>>> >>>> Relicensing >>>> ----------- >>>> >>>> The last paragraph notwithstanding, the LLVM Project is in the middle of a large >>>> effort to change licenses, which aims to solve several problems: >>>> >>>> * The old licenses made it difficult to move code from (e.g.) the compiler to >>>> runtime libraries, because runtime libraries used a different license from the >>>> rest of the compiler. >>>...

...for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License -# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software -# Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. +# along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. include $(top_srcdir)/subdir-rules.mk diff --git a/autogen.sh b/autogen.sh index fcdd0ce..f055ffc 100755 --- a/autogen.sh +++ b/autogen.sh @@ -13,8 +13,7 @@ # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License -# along wi...

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 d...

...with which they disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Relicensing >>>>>> ----------- >>>>>> >>>>>> The last paragraph notwithstanding, the LLVM Project is in the middle of a large >>>>>> effort to change licenses, which aims to solve several problems: >>>>>> >>>>>> * The old licenses made it difficult to move code from (e.g.) the compiler to >>>>>> runtime libraries, because runtime libraries used a different license from the >>>>>> re...

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Sublime HQ Pty Ltd* <sales at sublimetext.com> Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 Subject: Sublime Text License Key To: "opticalphoenix at gmail.com" <opticalphoenix at gmail.com> Hello, Thanks for purchasing a copy of Sublime Text! Your license key is: ----- BEGIN LICENSE ----- Dennis Wright Jr Single User License EA7E-819939

...rote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R >>>>>> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you >>>>> thinks >>>>> that it's a good license for open source software? >>>>...

...rms into "New BSD license" wherever we find them. Here is a short list of troublesome excerpts that I stumbled on, with sources: "Xiph.org variant of the BSD license" -> http://www.speex.org/ "Sample Xiph.Org Variant of the 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...

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

...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 don't see a easy programmatic way of identifying what RShowDoc() can provide and what it can't, so I've left that out. Cheers, Michael ------------------------------------------------- Index: src/library/base/R/license.R ====...

...On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch >> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R >>>> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >>>> >>> >>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks >>> that it's a good license for open source software? >>> >>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or so...

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 license function in the way...

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: >> >> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R >> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >> > > That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then...

...de file that contains a copyright line, a general notice regarding the lack of warranty, and information on where to obtain a full copy of the license. The GPL HOWTO [2] expresses similar instructions for the inclusion of a copyright line with the license. I know that R distributes copies of common licenses under 'share/licenses' in the R source. Debian does as well in '/usr/share/common-licenses/' for the purpose of not having to include the full LICENSE and/or COPYING file with every package that uses a common open source license, allowing the use of verbage such as "The Debian...

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 Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>

...ht (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc., + 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. - Preamble + Preamble The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and t...

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: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice FOS...