similar to: R package licences

(Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk) On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: | Aside from R there are the add-on packages. | | A frequency table showing the licenses of the CRAN packages indicates | that the all or almost all packages have some sort of free software license | with GPL licenses being most common. (A few packages have restrictions |

Hi all, We are busy developing some software (some is web based, others not) and I am having a bit of hard time understanding (or rather, choosing) a license model to work with, We will offer some free software (PHP based scripts, and even Windows based applications) and for this I'm sure the GPL, or even LGPL (for the network side?) will work fine. But, we also need to suppose these

Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum. mdowle > It appears that ParallelR

dear (FX)Ruby hackers, lyle has released FXRuby 1.6.0 some days ago. so it was a good opportunity for me to fix some more bugs and release annother version of foxGUIb which is tested against FXRuby 1.6.0. the most interesting feature Fox1.6 brings to you is unicode support. (see foxGUIb/test/unicode_test_japanese.rbin) thanks for all the feedback and the bug reports. enjoy ;) -- henon

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

... > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > contributors. > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to > discuss such a case in an organization that contributed source code is > nearly impossible. > > Looking at the source code (my short

By way of introduction, I manage YottaDB (https://yottadb.com and https://gitlab.com/YottaDB). The core of YottaDB is a hierarchical key-value datastore (https://docs.yottadb.com/MultiLangProgGuide/cprogram.html and https://gitlab.com/YottaDB/DB/YDB). The code base is mature (in daily production use since 1986), and very performant, with strongly ACID transactions, and replication (to ensure

Since I''m setting up my development environment on a new system, I figure now is the time to get rid of one of the extra dependencies: NQXML. It appears that REXML can now parse the whole classes xml file in about 20 seconds on this machine, which is a huge improvement over the many, many minutes it used to take. So I am now updating extract.rb to use REXML instead of NQXML.

Hi. I need know what windows licences I will need to use wine. sample: connection licence, terminal server licence thanks

There was mention of this [r-sig-fedora at r-project.org] mailing list on one of the other R lists overnight. I thought the list needed a bit of posting, as I could not recall seeing content recently on it. I cross post to the Red Hat hosted list as well, it raises issues relevant there as well I have been packaging in support of many of the financial packages at CRAN and in R-Forge [

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

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 contains no derivative of any portion of the

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

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 site, showing the LGPL v2.1

On 15 June 2018 at 21:07, Keith Keller via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: > On 2018-06-16, Johnny Hughes via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: >> >> You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you >> get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of >> the terms of your subscription. > > Is this

Note I'm not asking for any legal advice here obviously, simply what the intention of the R foundation is with regard to allowing commercial connection to R. I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like this may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle. In the

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

Afternoon all. I was discussing the current licensing of Xapian and how it influences the way we work with someone at another OSS project recently, and although the upshot is likely to be that they'll amend their license (it's a corporate foundation, and GPL compatibility is something they desire for precisely this reason), it did prompt me to think about how we're tracking where we

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

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