search for: relicense

...9;s the licence of the codebase that Xapian was originally based on. To briefly summarise that early history, Xapian has evolved out of a codebase known as "Open Muscat" which was released under GPLv2+ by BrightStation PLC (most recent contribution 2001). We don't have permission to relicense BrightStation's code. After BrightStation stopped developing the code, there were some contributions copyrighted Ananova Ltd (most recent 2002) and then a very small number from Orange PCS Ltd which took over Ananova (most recent 2003). GPL causes problems for the PHP bindings (because the GP...

...ctually this happened because we started to use it in a separate GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking the license of 'hash'. We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash works well for our needs. Notes: - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so seems to be suitable for a library - ha...

> It is my interest to see my code used. In particular I am really excited > to see llvm/clang/lld/lldb/etc replacing more and more of the previous > components on these systems. I really don't want to harm that change. > > If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are OK with license X, I am OK with license X. Rafael, It is my understanding that Apache 2.0 licensed code will not be integrated

...nd is there a complete list of contributors available somewhere? > > thanks, > -- > Per Lundqvist > Hi Per, relicensing the yajsync library with LGPL might be a precondition for the longterm awareness and survivability of the yajsync project. So it's really worth the attempt to relicense. I saw that librsync is as well LGPL'ed. In my view it would have never gotten the attention and usage/linkage it has today with being GPL'ed only. Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of con...

...use it in a separate >> GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the >> core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking >> the license of 'hash'. >> >> We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. >> If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably >> implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash >> works well for our needs. >> >> Notes: >> >> - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does c...

Hi, I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. But in order to do so I would first have to get a list of all the individual contributors to rsync and then be able to contact them

...Here are some quick points that come to mind: >> >> 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be >> “signed” before a contribution can be made. > > Yes, but changing the license impacts our users, which is a bigger issue IMHO. We don’t believe that the relicense will impact users of LLVM. Also, a relicense is unavoidable, as I already explained. >> 2. The Apache CLA is the only widely available one, but it is unsuitable for LLVM’s goals because it allows a project to relicense contributions. >> 3. Some contributors are significantly concern...

Seeing how http://flac.sourceforge.net/license.html stresses that libflac and libflac++ are licensed under the New BSD License, would it be possible to relicense include/share/alloc.h from GPL 2.1+ to the New BSD License so that all of libflac and libflac++ become licensed under the New BSD License as intended? Best Regards Magnus Blomfelt

...ause we started to use it in a separate > GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the > core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking > the license of 'hash'. > > We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. > If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably > implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash > works well for our needs. > > Notes: > > - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so >...

...ause we started to use it in a separate > GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the > core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking > the license of 'hash'. > > We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. > If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably > implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash > works well for our needs. > > Notes: > > - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so >...

> > > > > > > I guess I could write an initial protocol specification - but it would > > > not be complete and I wouldn't be able to relicense my library to > > > LGPL anyway. > > > > > > So I guess I have convinced myself that it is not worth the effort > > > trying. Time is probably better spent coding ;) And that's OK too, it > is not > > > that big of a deal anyway. > > > &g...

...are to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a contribution can be made. 2. The Apache CLA is the only widely available one, but it is unsuitable for LLVM’s goals because it allows a project to relicense contributions. 3. Some contributors are significantly concerned with the Apache CLA, partially because of #2, but there are other concerns. Losing contributors would be unfortunate. 4. We do not want a novel legal device (e.g. a new or significantly hacked up CLA). 5. The only way to achieve our...

...alled libguestfs to make it compileable under mingw. currently the library is using the fork/exec combination which doesnt compile under mingw (mingw doesnt support fork). spawn-pipe looks like a good replacement, however it is licensed GPL which is a problem for an LGPL library. Is it possible to relicense that module (and its dependencies) to be LGPL instead ? Thanks, Or

...2017 at 7:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 02:16 AM, C Bergström wrote: > > A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? > Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to > relicense llvm? > > > Good question. I discussed this explicitly with Tobias, and his general > feeling is that relicensing isl again would be doable if necessary (we > already did this once, to an MIT license, in order to enable better LLVM > integration). > > > Does adding polly...

...Polly, and all other subprojects. There are a few exceptions: * Code imported from other projects (e.g. Google Test, Autoconf, etc) will remain as it is. This code isn't *developed* as part of the LLVM project, it is *used* by LLVM. * Some subprojects are impractical or uninteresting to relicense (e.g. llvm-gcc and dragonegg). These will be split off from the LLVM project (e.g. to separate Github projects), allowing interested people to continue their development elsewhere. To relicense LLVM, we will be seeking approval from all of the copyright holders of code in the repository, or...

...>>>> * Code imported from other projects (e.g. Google Test, Autoconf, etc) will >>>> remain as it is. This code isn't *developed* as part of the LLVM project, it >>>> is *used* by LLVM. >>>> * Some subprojects are impractical or uninteresting to relicense (e.g. llvm-gcc >>>> and dragonegg). These will be split off from the LLVM project (e.g. to >>>> separate Github projects), allowing interested people to continue their >>>> development elsewhere. >>>> >>>> To relicense LLVM, we will be se...

...> 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 right way (TM). And if rsync itself could be split into a LGPL licensed library + GPL application others could benefit from this too (and possible rsync also with an increase...

...re a few exceptions: >> >> * Code imported from other projects (e.g. Google Test, Autoconf, etc) will >> remain as it is. This code isn't *developed* as part of the LLVM project, it >> is *used* by LLVM. >> * Some subprojects are impractical or uninteresting to relicense (e.g. llvm-gcc >> and dragonegg). These will be split off from the LLVM project (e.g. to >> separate Github projects), allowing interested people to continue their >> development elsewhere. >> >> To relicense LLVM, we will be seeking approval from all of the copyri...

...t; > > Maybe you could approach these people first to get the process started. > > The main thing before even starting such a process is that it's still > very hard to evolve a port if the upstream project has an incompatible > license. You would need to ask for permission to relicense any > relevant future modifications also. > > So then that leaves out: > > 1) split rsync into a library and application part and then make the > library part LGPL:ed. This could be useful for others too I > guess... This would be very useful! And is partially appr...

...bug tracker. ...ugh > > Maybe you could approach these people first to get the process started. The main thing before even starting such a process is that it's still very hard to evolve a port if the upstream project has an incompatible license. You would need to ask for permission to relicense any relevant future modifications also. So then that leaves out: 1) split rsync into a library and application part and then make the library part LGPL:ed. This could be useful for others too I guess... or 2) write a protocol specification instead. 1) is not that easy and it still re...