similar to: License

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

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.

Le Jeudi 11 Avril 2002 21:09, m.ibarra at cdcixis-na.com a ?crit : > I was curious to know if you had any luck in getting openssh's sftp > server properly configured to allow chrooted sftp logins? I have had > no success and need something quickly. Dear Mike, Unfortunately, I did not succeed to have it work. I got in contact with James Dennis <jdennis at law.harvard.edu>, who

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,

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

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 23:36 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't want to discourage you, but you are basically asking for > interpretation of legal documents... > If you really really need to know the answer to questions like these, > the best bet is to hire legal council. Chris is right. I would add that it sounds like you are already getting nonsense responses. However,

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]]

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

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

Hi, I have developed one application using ggmap package.It is based on google map. I am a bit confused regarding its licensing terms.I want to know that can i use it with my other applications. Is it legal? -- With Regards, Narendra Pratap Principal Research Developer Hitech Robotic Systemz Ltd. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I would send an introductory e-mail to: R-foundation at R-project.org <mailto:R-foundation at R-project.org> That will facilitate further discussion on the matter and additional details can be requested offline as may be needed. Be aware that none of the R Foundation members are lawyers. So while we can perhaps offer informal and non-binding opinions, you should seek formal legal

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

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

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

Hi all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:10:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Let's start with: In just about every country in the world, anyone > > contributing on behalf of their company are exercising their employers > > copyright (in most cases, even if they do it in

On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > >>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. >> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without

Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I made some more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I discovered: - from FSF it seems that packaging together a GPL application and a commercial one it is a corner case of licensing. Here is what they say: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be