similar to: License question

Hi, Isn't there a way to erase an environment (created by new.env) with all of the objects belonging to it? I've searched everywhere but could not find. Thanks in advance. Regards, David Haykazyan OneMarketData LLC. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I am looking for some advice on licenses. Here is my situation: Over the last couple years, I have developed a rather large number of fire department analysis functions. I am in the process of trying to publish some packages to make these functions available to the public. I am trying to release two packages that essentially define S4 classes for common types of fire department data. Then, I

Hello, I would like to see Xapian used more widely in the PHP community. The major obstacle is that binaries of the PHP extension cannot be distributed. I've been reading earlier discussions on this and wonder if there's now an option. My starting points were https://trac.xapian.org/wiki/FAQ/PHP%20Bindings%20Package and the discussion at https://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191. One comment

Hi, I'm confused about 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

Dear All, thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite limited: I would most likely need to use a remote procedure call API, and build one side of the API as GPL. But this would make the coupling much slower and more

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 believed that

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Noted in the readme that rsync is licensed under GPL, and have some questions about this. Reading through a couple different places on the internet, of people wondering why there are few to no GUI front-ends (are there any good ones? if so, much of my questions here can be disregarded). I think I found one project, a PHP-GTK interface, that

Possibly more of a legal question than a technical development question, but here goes. In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can write R packages and distribute them under licenses not compatible with GPL, by making the relevant header files available under the LGPL. This was an explicit change that was made in February 2001, and allows for DLLs that

I don't speak on behalf of any developers, but most times it is very difficult to change the license of an open source project, as the consent of all contributors would be needed which is nearly impossible. There are ways, but I don't think it is very likely. Further information about linking gpl is widely available on the net. Afaik it is always allowed to link to any library as long as

Hello, I plan to create a commercial software that would automate the running of a few IT security tools and build a nice report, in order to help security auditors in their work. I saw your smbclient tool that could be really appropriate. As this tool is GPL'd, I would like to make sure you agree with the usage (running and parsing) I plan. Of course, should you have any requirement (e.g.

Dear All, I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer advice, but I'd like to get your feedback on a license question. My goal is to develop commercial software for image analysis of biomedical samples that may be used i.e. in academic institutions.

My humble 2 nonlegal cents: There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a lot more of these. All of these use essentially the same idea: - create the package under a standard GPL license - use the (command line) interface provided by the proprietary software to connect with it, eg by calls to

Hi, I use R at home, and am interested in using it at my work company (which is in the Fortune 100). I began the request, and our legal team has given some gruff about the open source license. Not boring you with the details here, but I used some info on gnu.org as a rebuttal, and someone at the company replied that the generalities of GNU GPL may differ from R's specific GNU GPL license,

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

ACM Software Copyright and License Agreement I have often seen the use of routines from the ACM Collected Algorithms, i.e. <netlib.org/toms/> (CALGO, or Trans. On Math. Software, TOMS), in Open Source programs, maybe also in some R packages --- and sometimes these programs are distributed under the GPL license, sometimes under proprietary licenses, e.g. in Scilab. The use of these CALGO

I would appreciate some help with this. I read the GPL license and basically it says you can do whatever you want with the software (sell, modify) as long as you include the source code, the License and make any changes you make available in the same manner to all others. My questions is this: If I develop an external application (say a Call Center application or a GUI management application)

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

HI Helpers, How could we use R and R packages licensed under GPL into commercial products? Is it allowed to load a library and get the results from it and using the results for commercial use? Thank you so much! Regards, Yan [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Howdy all... Reading with interest the thread(s) about REvolution, package licensing and the requirements of the GPL. First of all, let me introduce myself?. ?I joined REvolution Computing in February, after working for nearly 4 years for Intel as an open source strategist and before that for 6 years at Sun, where I established the first corporate open source programs office. ?I'm a Member of