similar to: GPLv3 and Mac OS X

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

Greetings!!! Could you please suggest ways to build clang/llvm without libstdc++? In short, to avoid using GPLv3 libraries or tools while building clang/llvm. Thank you in advance. -Hiral -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150128/a6d24e76/attachment.html>

Hi Ian, I also found this address in the git history, hoping this works since ian at inspir.es doesn''t. ----- Forwarded message from Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> ----- From: Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> To: mongrel-unicorn at rubyforge.org Cc: Hongli Lai <hongli at phusion.nl>, Augusto Becciu <augusto at jadedpixel.com>, I?aki Baz Castillo

Thank Ismail for quick reply. I read that Linux, we need to build... (1) libcxx (without libcxxabi) ==> done (2) build libcxxabi ==> failing with following error (3) and then re-build libcxx By the way I am building libcxx and libcxxabi Out-of-tree llvm build. Please correct me if I am missing something. Thank you. -Hiral -----Original Message----- From: İsmail Dönmez [mailto:ismail

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

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

There is a linker argument that only Apple's GCC recognizes in the latest build. In libs/wine/Makefile.in, there is a variable that reads: Code: DYLIB_LDFLAGS = -compatibility_version $(SOVERSION) -current_version $(VERSION) -headerpad_max_install_names in order for non-Apple GCC to successfully build, it needs to pass-through the argument to the linker. The line should read: Code:

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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Jeremy Allison wrote: > GPLv3 should guarentee that you can replace the Samba > on *any* device. That's the whole point of GPLv3 - no > DRM. > > If you find a Samba device using any Samba 3.2 or > newer that doesn't allow you to replace it, please > let us know so we can start the compliance process. I wonder how that will play out with the new

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 12.03.2016 um 18:08 schrieb Sketch: > >On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > >>GPLv3 should guarentee that you can replace the Samba > >>on *any* device. That's the whole point of GPLv3 - no > >>DRM. > >> > >>If you find a Samba device using any

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

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 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 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.

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 license upgrade to GPLv3) AS doesn't understand new mnemonics and fails. >>

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

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:31:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > i personally don't care what any soho-equipment manufacturer does or not, so > it's not abut "attitude" - it's simple logic - and maybe the switch to GPLv3 > is the reason for the whole subject "The sad state of samba 4 adaption" Utter bollocks, and I have the OEMs to prove it.

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.