similar to: Improving asterisk documentation - sources and what the community can do

Hi! http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk+sound+files+international#German lists a plenty of sound files for German. Can someone recommend one for Asterisk 1.4 (any maybe 1.6 soon). thanks klaus

I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. Always good to keep boxes updated, for security and stability reasons. <http://forums.olm.net/showthread.php?t=2137>

Hi All, I have just setup a Dovecot Imap server on a Ubuntu 6.06 Lamp box. Basically I use fetchmail to retrieve emails from foregin pop accounts and then procmail transfers emails for /var/mail/username to ~/Maildir/new and other folders. Everything works fine *except* if my Thunderbird client is connected (I haven't tried any other client). If an email is received while TB is connected,

Dear R-users, The strsplit function does not exist in S-plus and I would like to use it. How could I reproduce the function in Splus or access to its source code? Thank you in advance, Sebastien

On 19 October 2015 at 21:03, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > If you are still concerned about this issue, my question is simply: what specific GPL2 compiler (or other user) that might want to use LLVM would be affected? I'm not. I was just pointing to the fact. :) I remember Apple and others have stuck with GPLv2 GCC, but I don't think there was any cross between

I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is just flamebait if I've ever seen it... --------------- #1 Is the submarine patent risk really that bad? (What's driving this) #2 Pragmatically have "you" even considered how to execute on this relicense plan? a. What if one of the copyright holders doesn't agree? b. What audit procedure do you plan to use c.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >> >> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages >> as well: >> >> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM. We don’t >> currently have a process where you

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >> I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: >> >> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. > > Yes, that is the cost I mention in the

On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc): > > $ c++ -static foo.cc > > Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution requirements (for compiler-rt or libc++). If it does, then we are going to end up with a large number of accidental license violations.

I will follow up with you offlist. -Chris > On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:11:11AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > 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: >

On 29 October 2015 at 10:25, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the previously voiced concerns of incompatibilities between the > Apache and GPLv2 license, I'd like to add one more thing. > > I work on a, at this time mostly LLVM-unrelated [1], "GPLv2 or later" > licensed compiler: the Free Pascal Compiler. Some

On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Ed Schouten <ed at nuxi.nl> wrote: >> >> ---- end --- > > Just to make sure I get this straight, I can substitute 'this > Software' by the names of components provided by the LLVM project. This is the literal license text that will be included with each of these projects, so no, you cannot literally make that substitution.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >>>> >>>>

Hi: I''m looking to get a point clarified which i''m sure is obvious to everyone else but I haven''t been able to find the answer to. i''ve tried searching through the forums and the api pages and haven''t found anything. Is there a way with migrations to set up foregin key relationships? (beyond putting in the relevant foregin_id attributes) Is

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:46, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > You could ship the non-combined program. > > IE You can ship an llvm jit and a gpl2 program, and jit the program > > on the user's machine. > > NeXT

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 13:57, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> 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

> > > > Again, as stated before, both of these issues are covered by the apache > license. > > > > It has a built-in CLA that explicitly grants both copyright and patent > > rights from contributors when they make contributions to the work. > > Huh? How can employee X of company Y contributing a patch grant any > patent rights on behalf of Y? > >

> > > > For clarification: Is my interpretation incorrect? If I compile code > with GCC, which uses templates from libc++ headers and therefore results in > libc++ code being inserted into the resulting binary, am I required to > abide by clause 4 of the Apache license and include the libc++ attribution? > > > > Yes. > > But, AFAIK, this is deliberate. IE

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>