similar to: trying to understand OSS, GPL, BSD & other licensing model for software distribution.

Hi, I want to ask you is it legal to create my own distribution based on Red Hat/Centos and to sell it under different name? I will make available for everyone to see the source code. Is this against the license agreement? regards Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi there Is there a commercial license for using Rsync or the Rsync algorithm within a commercial product? I appreciate that Rsync as it stands is GNU and therefore it cannot be used in this way, but I thought that I would ask the list. I understand that it is open source, but we have an application that would benefit from something like Rsync and therefore thought we would ask the question. If

This post asks members of the R community, users and developers, to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License and R community policies more generally. The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original contributors by not disseminating misleading information about them. Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors have no rights regarding

Am Mittwoch, den 14.05.2008, 11:27 +0400 schrieb Anton Korobeynikov: > Hello, Razvan > > > after that I use only the Windows interface to it (like any other > > proprietary Windows software does) , GPL forbids me to do that. > That's due to nature of the interface. Binary interface to codec make > the proprietary application 'derived work'. This is what the

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, > If you distribute the GPLed library and the proprietary application > separately, and make sure that they are linked at installation time, the > link step creates a derived work indeed but that's inconsequential > because it isn't redistributed. Interestingly enough, you need a linker at the target system to do that. And guess what this discussion started at :-p Gr.

Hello, Razvan > after that I use only the Windows interface to it (like any other > proprietary Windows software does) , GPL forbids me to do that. That's due to nature of the interface. Binary interface to codec make the proprietary application 'derived work'. > - I didn't find any commercial projects (not Operating Systems or > dual-licensed but simple

On May 13, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Razvan Aciu wrote: > 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: > For now, I think for a commercial developer who wants to create a > complete > compiler toolchain using llvm, trying to package its compiler with > GCC is a

I'm trying to view some websites which require Java applets to be installed in the web browser - how do I install these please as I haven't found a simple/obvious way to do it with yum? Thanks, Andy

Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future? My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be GPL.. If not, I will have to go back to using C as an intermediate language. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/5216ab28/attachment.html>

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! After a presentation of some statistical analysis of process datas, (where the few R possibilities I was able to show made quite a big impression), I was asked if it was possible to program a statistical application which could be used directly by the end user. Such an application would include a userfriendly interface (developped in C++), a db , a core statistical program, standard

I read many posts from the archives but could not find the answer to my question. So here goes: I need to run a Samba installation on a RH9 Linux server. I have done such installation before and was succesful at it. Our main network is W2K based and users all have accounts in the domain. With great difficulties, I convinced the MS Net Admin to create an entry for my Samba server in the

and tell me that it is possible to make icecast broadcast titles or id3 tags. I refuse to believe that you all can talk so fondly of a program that gives you the ability to make a radiostation but not tell its listeners what is on the air.. That is just too weird.. So what do YOU do to tell people what they are listening to? Arvid www.playrec.dk -for all kinds of good music ICQ# 724069 ---

Hi All, I've been lurking here for a while now, having only made a couple of posts. I am starting a new hardphone project and was wondering if there is some GPL'ed IAX source that I could start with. I've searched and haven't come up with much beyond iaxClient. While iaxClient does give me a little bit to start with, it looks like it is really intended to be more of a

> if you stream with MuSE (actually at the 0.6.1) you can easily specify > metatags as title, url and description from confortable input fields > embedded in the gui ( http://muse.dyne.org ). MuSE is GPL'ed software. Is that title dynamic (ie: does it change per song to list the song name)? Or is it a one time static thing? Louis --- >8 ---- List archives:

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Bot Tiger <bottiger1 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is there anything else besides GNU or any other targets in the future? > > My goal is to be able to not have all the binaries coming out to be GPL.. You do know that the GNU tools don't cause their output to be GPL'ed, right? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF and

Dear All, I would like to propose adding the OSL-3.0 license to the list of "standard" licenses bundled with R: Index: share/licenses/license.db =================================================================== --- share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733) +++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy) @@ -317,3 +317,12 @@ URL:

Hello, As we mostly use Open Source software, we have automated process to build new servers from scratch. Unfortunately, this process is somehow broken by having to type by hand licensing data (e.g. HPEC or G729 licences) and it's not so easy to maintain accurate licensing data so that someone can easy restore configuration on another platform (hardware failure). How do you deal with that

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd <at> debian.org> writes: > On 22 April 2015 at 11:34, Roger Bivand wrote: > | While I agree with Martyn with respect to code, documentation, and > | vignettes, the point Ben raises is relevant and not obvious. Data sets in > | say GLP-licensed packages are on occasion challenged by Debian packagers [GPL] > Not generally the packagers