similar to: testhelp/maketree.py is GPLv2

Hello everyone, I'm not sure who to ask about this, but I have a licensing question. I'm writing a utility to allow Git to connect to SMB shares, which uses libsmbclient. I was thinking about using libgit2 in my program: http://libgit2.github.com/ . This library is licensed as GPLv2 only, with a linking exception to link to any program without restriction. My understanding is that, since

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

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

Hello Jeremy and samba maintainers, I am using Samba 3.0.37 and I am confused about the license. On one hand both the COPYING file in the 3.0.37 tarball and your website indicates that version 3.0.37 is GPLv2. http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/ On the other hand, in the 3.0.37 tarball, there are many files with GPLv3 headers without any exception. For instance, several file in

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 incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible

Hi David, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit buried: On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:12 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. > > I agree that this is a problem.

It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version of the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous over a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as was mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the corresponding source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would be required for

Greetings! Can someone provide a simple script for a R function that recursively builds a binary tree. I am most familiar with C and pass by reference, but I think R is like Fortran and pass by value. - Mike Beddo

On 12/03/16 16:08, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:50:50PM +0100, Luca Olivetti wrote: >> El 12/03/16 a les 12:37, Rowland penny ha escrit: >> >>> Well yes, but these are usually a mass market product and will no doubt, >>> in the fullness of time, get to use a version of Samba 4 seeing as how >>> 3.6 has been EOL since March 2015.

Hi all, Some history. Samba has historically only accepted code with personal, not corporate copyright attached. There were a couple of good reasons for this in the past, one of which was that we preferred GPL enforcement decisions to be made by individuals, not by corporations. Under GPLv2, a license violator loses all rights under the license and these have to be reinstated by the copyright

On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Damjan Marion wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> >>> On 22 June 2011 14:33, Damjan Marion <damjan.marion at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Problem is that in case when old binutils are used (in my case freebsd is using old one due to

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

On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >> >> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then.

Hello, I'm sending this to R-devel under the guideline that the ensuing discussion would probably be unintelligible to people who aren't programmers. If that's not right, I apologize. <http://www.r-project.org/Licenses/> says in part: "Some files are licensed under 'GPL (version 2 or later)', which includes GPL-3. See the comments in the files to see if this

Hello, I would like to see Xapian used more widely in the PHP community. The major obstacle is that binaries of the PHP extension cannot be distributed. I've been reading earlier discussions on this and wonder if there's now an option. My starting points were https://trac.xapian.org/wiki/FAQ/PHP%20Bindings%20Package and the discussion at https://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191. One comment

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 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. > > Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then. So, how do we solve the problem until then? cheers, --renato

Hi, I want to use library of samba that license is "GPLv2" in my program that is proprietary. The source code version of samba is 3.0.6. Is it possible to modify the license to "LGPL"? Thanks.

Hello everyone. Please, find the patch for Fedora 10 in the attachment(**). The distro-independent package will be put to kernel.org a bit later. I. Loading kernels from btrfs volumes Now you can load kernels and initrds from btrfs volumes composed of many devices. WARNING!!! Make sure that all components of your loading btrfs volume(*) are visible to grub. Otherwise,