similar to: RE: Asterisk license (fwd)

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

Are there any thoughts to changing the license used by Vorbis from the GPL to the LGPL? As it stands, linking to libvorbis will taint any program. I'd like to research using Vorbis and contribute to it, but I'm not at the liberty to GPL the engine I'd like to link with libvorbis. The GPL prevents me from using it. The LGPL would still protect the Vorbis code while allowing

Are there any thoughts to changing the license used by Vorbis from the GPL to the LGPL? As it stands, linking to libvorbis will taint any program. I'd like to research using Vorbis and contribute to it, but I'm not at the liberty to GPL the engine I'd like to link with libvorbis. The GPL prevents me from using it. The LGPL would still protect the Vorbis code while allowing

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

El vie, 10-04-2015 a las 10:21 +0900, Timo Sirainen escribi?: > On 09 Apr 2015, at 06:52, Guillermo M. Narvaja <guillermo.narvaja at fierro.com.ar> wrote: > > > > Since December 2014, clients using the Python poplib library (getmail in > > my case) started to limit the line length of RETR and other command > > responses sent from the server to 2048 bytes: >

It is my understanding that R is licensed under the GPL with the exception of a few header files for the purposes of linking binary code with R under non-GPL licenses. However, the R-base package itself is licensed under the GPL, as are many (but not all) packages in CRAN. Furthermore, basically any R script will use functionality from R-base. As I understand it, the situation isn't

Since December 2014, clients using the Python poplib library (getmail in my case) started to limit the line length of RETR and other command responses sent from the server to 2048 bytes: See https://bugs.python.org/issue16041 (Included at least in Python-2.7.9) Dovecot doesn't have line split in the POP3 module, so Python fails to retrieve messages with long lines. RFC 1939 says: "

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

Sobre todo explicarles bien a que pregunta quieren contestar con la estadistica etc. El tema en psicología es sore todo que entiendan cuando leen algún articulo que significa la estadística. Por eso creo que con execsl y su add va super bien para que puedan reproducir casos. Usar algo nuevo, por lo que he visto con los chVales de clase les pierde por completo y desconectan. Ademas la estad lA

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

Hi Andrey, 2016-01-23 4:02 GMT+01:00 Andrey Gursky <andrey.gursky at e-mail.ua>: ... > 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

libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns out to be "GPL". Actually 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

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

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.

Please be patient and read this... Can AJ please change the license of the wine-launcher (like mono does)? You can still keep the libraries under LGPL. Please note proprietary is not bad and no oss w/o proprietary... You can make WINE a standard of binaries because of competition of Linux/BSD/Solaris binaries. It would be good for OS developers if you Change the license of the WINE launcher.

On 11/25/2013 04:39 PM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: >> Looks like there is something beyond LBA 65535 (As Mattias confirmed) > > I wanted to ask him now, whether this was already with > version 6. > But meanwhile he reported that it was 5. > > >> I can push isolinux.bin (4.07) to a really high LBA address and boot

I've always wondered, why can't a simple LGPL/GPL double-license do the trick? -- Asheesh. On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:27:42PM -0500, Woodrow Stool wrote: > > > A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a > > question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. > > > > Josh, have

I note that LICENSES and README state LGPL v2.1 but there are other files with other licenses, most obviously many shell script files such as: regedit/hivexregedit sh/example* Also some Makefiles: perl/Makefile.am sh/Makefile.am ...etc... find . -type f | while read filename; \ do if grep -iqs 'general public license' $filename; then \ if grep -viqs 'lesser' $filename; then

Peter- Can you please clarify the license of libcom32, from the samples directory in syslinux? I am attempting to create .c32 files that are not encumbered by the GPL, but the conio.c file states that is is covered by the GPL. So far, I have resisted linking with libcom32.a, but is it really your intent to license the library code under GPL, and not something more like the LGPL?

Hello, Would com32 modules be considered the same as an ordinary Linux executable with respect to LGPL? That is, as long as you released any changes to syslinux/com32 libs would you also have to release the source to the com32 module? Thanks for your time.