similar to: License agreement

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

*********************************************************** Sigrid M. Volko, Ph.D. Assistant Director Office of Licensing and Technology Development Johns Hopkins University 100 N. Charles Street, 5th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 phone: 410-516-4962 fax: 410-516-5113 This e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential

ACM Software Copyright and License Agreement I have often seen the use of routines from the ACM Collected Algorithms, i.e. <netlib.org/toms/> (CALGO, or Trans. On Math. Software, TOMS), in Open Source programs, maybe also in some R packages --- and sometimes these programs are distributed under the GPL license, sometimes under proprietary licenses, e.g. in Scilab. The use of these CALGO

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

Hi, The Perl module Search::Xapian's README file ends with these lines: ===================================================================== This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. ===================================================================== (http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/OLLY/Search-Xapian-1.2.4.0/README) But

I would appreciate some help with this. I read the GPL license and basically it says you can do whatever you want with the software (sell, modify) as long as you include the source code, the License and make any changes you make available in the same manner to all others. My questions is this: If I develop an external application (say a Call Center application or a GUI management application)

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

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code > > freely combinable with other OSS. > > Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's >

Does anybody know where I can find the Rails license agreement? Thanks, David -- David Katz david.katz@gmail.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd. One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other,

libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns out to be "GPL". Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking the license of 'hash'. We'd therefore like to request that

For the people who are currently interested in java as it relates to centos now that Sun has GPL'd java there are some things to be aware of. The folks at jpackage.org are pretty much all over this development but it's not the bright shiny news everyone has made it out to be. Sun did a very good thing by moving java under the GPL, and they should be commended for FINALLY seeing the light

I know the standard answer to this kind of question is "get legal advice from a lawyer", but I would like to hear the (hopefully informed) opinion of other people. I would say that, according to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, any R code using GPL packages can be distributed legally only using GPL-compatible licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

R-devel, I am interested in creating a package that requires non-GPL'd (commercial) C code to work. In essence it is a single .c file with no use of R headers (all .C callable functions). For example's sake: 1 #include <stdio.h> 2 3 void test (int *a) { 4 *a = 101; 5 } The package isn't destined for CRAN, and I realize that this isn't R-legal, but looking for

And here's a patch for Intel Math Kernel Library. This allows commercial users of Speex to use a high-speed FFT library that isn't GPL'd. (You do need to pay for it though). This is 3 times faster than the default FFT in speex, and also faster than FFTW3 since MKL has native support for the complex packing Speex uses. Since Intel hasn't supplied any pkg-config files, and which

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

We received a notice from our pci-dss auditors respecting this: CVE-2002-0510 The UDP implementation in Linux 2.4.x kernels keeps the IP Identification field at 0 for all non-fragmented packets, which could allow remote attackers to determine that a target system is running Linux. The NVD entry for which contains this note: CHANGE> [Cox changed vote from REVIEWING to NOOP] Cox> So I

I think I am using objects according to the man page. This seems to be a valid regular expression. But whether I know what I'm doing or no, it still shouldn't be doing what valgrind seems to be saying it's doing. (IMHO) ---------- start of script ---------- Script started on Mon 01 Aug 2005 02:09:00 PM PDT linux$ printenv VALGRIND_OPTS --tool=3Dmemcheck linux$ cat bar.R foo <- 1