similar to: Re: Vote For CentOS :) -- at this point, call the FSF ...

The "2005 Readers' Choice Awards" voting is in progress at Linux Journal, and CentOS is Nominated in the "distribution:" category. So ... all you guys and gals who think CentOS is the best thing ever, get over to: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8266 and vote for CentOS :) ------------------------------- Also, since write ins are allowed on the e-mailed ballot, if

I'd like to address several issues raised by people in relation to my notice of the ssh(R) trademark to the OpenSSH group. Also, I would like to make a proposal to the community for resolving this issue (included at the end). First, I'll answer a number of questions and arguments presented in the discussion. > "the SSH Corp trademark registration in the US is for a logo

Hello, I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions: Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product? Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and

Thanks for the reply. I had already visited the links mentioned by you. The link? https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/ talks about non-usage of trademarks in commercial software which is taken care. The link https://www.centos.org/legal/ talks very less about legal terms and condition. Is there some other link which mentions about the License model used by CentOS. Infact, no where it is

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims are > not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void. The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is void then you have no permission at all to distribute any

I know the standard answer to this kind of question is "get legal advice from a lawyer", but I would like to hear the (hopefully informed) opinion of other people. I would say that, according to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, any R code using GPL packages can be distributed legally only using GPL-compatible licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

On 10/13/2015 01:40 PM, Brian Reichert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:51:07PM -0400, Brian Reichert wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:42:08AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> The info you are looking at there is for CentOS-7 .. the syslinux for >>> CentOS-6 is here: >>> >>>

I intend to submit a newly developed package to CRAN (to be licensed under the GPL), which prompted me to re-read the GPL FAQ. The following section caught my attention: > If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? > > When the interpreter just interprets a language,

Friends, Sorry to write this to a developer mailing list. I have already approached some OpenSSH/OpenBSD core members on this, including Markus Friedl, Theo de Raadt, and Niels Provos, but they have chosen not to bring the issue up on the mailing list. I am not aware of any other forum where I would reach the OpenSSH developers, so I will post this here. As you know, I have been using the SSH

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/12/2014, 4:26 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote: >> >>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Henrik Bengtsson <hb at biostat.ucsf.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 9, 2014 6:38 AM, "Apps Embedded" <apps.embedded at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>

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

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

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Henrik Bengtsson <hb at biostat.ucsf.edu> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2014 6:38 AM, "Apps Embedded" <apps.embedded at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We have published an Android app called R Console on the Play Store since >> D?cember 2013. >>

Hi i have installed a new Asterisk server on Fedora. My first server use Asterisk 1.6.x with a MySQL CDR and realtime. I have a small problems, when i configure on the new server, the same information in MySQL, we have a error: [Jun 3 16:27:59] ERROR[3140] res_config_mysql.c: MySQL RealTime: Failed to connect database server SSI on myhost.myserver.com (err 2003). Check debug for more info.

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the relationship between CentOS and RHEL. Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid > > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked > > against any library under and

Hi All!I am builiding a firewall appliance based on CentOS. I am using CentOS as it is with some packages removed and some configuration done to security harden the appliance. Over and above this I will be installing Apache Web Server and Tomcat to run my web application which will give a web interface to configure the iptables in the appliance. There is no development done in iptables. It is used

Hi all, There have been posts in the past about R being made available for the iPhone and perhaps more logically now, on the iPad. My recollection is that the hurdle discussed in the past was primarily a lack of access to a CLI on the iPhone's variant of OSX, compelling the development of a GUI interface for R specifically for these devices. R itself, can be successfully compiled with the

Hello https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/ According to above, I found following message. ---------------------- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in these Guidelines, the following are examples of unacceptable uses: 1.Use of the CentOS Marks in connection with commercial redistribution of CentOS software ---------------------- I have a question. What means "Use of the