similar to: Wine LGPL version

Hi Timo (and all!), Venaktesh is a friend of mine working on a patch to the venerable Alpine mail reader so it can read Maildir format mailboxes on disk. Venkatesh wanted to know if he could use some code from Dovecot's lib-storage (safely opening/reading Maildirs, including accounting for NFS and ESTALE) and the UID->message mapping code. This way, Dovecot and Alpine would agree on

Hi Timo http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/1f3f21081ee5 : man pages: Updated v2.1 -> v2.2 dovecot.1.in now references a inexistent "LGPLv2.2" instead of "LGPLv2.1"

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

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

Hello, I am new to Cortado and I am very interested in playing video in some of my Java applets using the Theora decoder. I would like to write a LGPL library to use the decoders in Processing (see processing.org). I prefer LGPL over GPL because it allows a wider usage of the library. The core libraries of Processing are released under LGPL as well. I would like to use com.fluendo.plugin and

We spent a little time here taking a look at the Vorbis licensing scheme and ran into some possible issues. In particular, the Vorbis FAQ page here says that the LGPL license applies to Vorbis libraries and GPL applies to source code (at least that's what I gather). http://www.vorbis.com/faq.html#flic http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html Reading the text of these Gnu

Just FYI, MySQL stuff has been pulled from Asterisk since apparently now the client libraries are under GPL and not LGPL (and thus are incompatible with OpenH323). You may check out the MySQL code under "asterisk-addons", but you should not use both MySQL and OpenH323 (OpenSSL is also questionable) in the same Asterisk installation unless you downgrade your MySQL client libraries to a

I've started working on a pure-java port of Theora under the LGPL, as a subproject of FMJ, the open-source implementation of JMF. It is similar to and dependent on the jogg/jorbis libraries from jcraft. The Cortado implementation is nice, but since it is GPL, that is too restrictive for FMJ, which is LGPL. This is, naturally, a large undertaking, and any help by anyone interested would

I have repackaged the client support functionality in samba to support applications requiring access to smb servers. It is a shared library built using automake & libtool. It builds samba's smbclient utility linked against the shared library for test. The perpose is to use in gnome virtual filesystem. It is currently used statically linked into midnight commander when configure'd

Note I'm not asking for any legal advice here obviously, simply what the intention of the R foundation is with regard to allowing commercial connection to R. I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like this may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle. In the

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and > release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :( ??? Actually, you _can_. You just can't link it into the GPL kernel program. [ I'm not posting this to cross you. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. ] There is nothing in the GPL that prevents a GPL

Hi, I'm confused about my licensing obligation with respect to the Xapian SWIG bindings. I've got a python wrapper that sits above the standard Xapian Python/SWIG bindings, and I wasn't sure if the *intent* of the Xapian team is that my python wrapper - and any code that also uses my wrapper also falls under GPLv2. It seems unclear if the FSF's position on dynamic linking in

Hi, I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. But in order to do so I would first have to get a list of all the individual contributors to rsync and then be able to contact them

Hi every one, I have an unfortunate need to release a closed source BeOS media codec for Vorbis, basically I'm using headers under an NDA so I can't release them. (Yeah I know closed source boo hiss). So I have a couple of question about what I need to do for all this to be above board. I've made no changes to the libraries so thats not a problem. As far as I can see as

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

Hi Timo, I can't find licensing information in http://hg.dovecot.org/imaptest. Can you tell what is the license for this utility? I'd like to package it for ALTLinux Sisyphus repository. -- Sergey Ivanov

... > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > contributors. > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to > discuss such a case in an organization that contributed source code is > nearly impossible. > > Looking at the source code (my short

Hello. We are trying to install R on our network, and I wanted to ask if there is a user license agreement. I will be grateful if somebody can send me a link to it; if one exists. Thank you very much ******************************************* Antonio Paredes USDA- Center for Veterinary Biologics Biometrics Unit 510 South 17th Street, Suite 104 Ames, IA 50010 (515) 232-5785 [[alternative

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