similar to: CrossOver license

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm

Sorry to bother, but I can?t understand a lot of your double standards ... On the one hand develop a proprietary product "CrossOver Linux", but at the same time cooperating with the project "Wine" that's free. Wine could be today better than CrossOver Linux, but who knows, perhaps you are sabotaging and delaying the Wine project. I Don?t understand why you don?t develop

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

Well I must say. I certainly feel like a fool now. I have been contributing to Wine for about five months, and was shocked to see a blatant advertisement for CrossOver, who take the hard work of those who have contributed their intellect for free and sell it for profit, on your home page. I then discovered through your own FAQ that most Wine developers are employed by CrossOver. Is this legal?

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

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

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?

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

> ok, > This is something I want to ask for some time now :) > Does this mean that License issues works with wine as it > works with the Linux kernel? > The Linux kernel is GPLed, however if a module (driver) is > dynamic loadable, it can have a proprietary license. > Is this the way it works with wine? The core (wine itself) > is LGPL, however its modules (builtin

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

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.

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

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

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

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

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

hi, i talked to timo about re-licensing the sasl part of dovecot under a more liberal license (bsd/lgpl e.g.). it would allow the integration of it in bsd base systems. another reason i would be interested is adding sasl support to svnserve [1]. so here is my question: what is your oppinion about this issue? any objections from contributors? darix [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- irssi

Our README file claims that license info is in LICENSE, but we did not have a file by that name in the tarball. At least we did correctly ship COPYING.LIB since the library is LGPLv2+. --- The LGPL requires that the user also receive a copy of the GPL, since anyone can upgrade their copy from LGPL to GPL. Does that mean we should ship a copy of COPYING alongside COPYING.LIB? README | 3 ++- 1

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.