similar to: Proposal to change Samba contribution copyright policy.

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

Here is a change we're instituting immediately to make it easier for corporations to contribute code changes to Samba whilst still retaining copyright ownership of the contributed code. Feel free to ask any questions on the samba-technical at samba.org list. We'd like to thank our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center for helping us to make this change. Regards, The Samba Team.

Here is a change we're instituting immediately to make it easier for corporations to contribute code changes to Samba whilst still retaining copyright ownership of the contributed code. Feel free to ask any questions on the samba-technical at samba.org list. We'd like to thank our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center for helping us to make this change. Regards, The Samba Team.

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

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

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.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================== "Patience is the companion of wisdom." Saint Augustine ============================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 3.2.0. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================== "Patience is the companion of wisdom." Saint Augustine ============================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 3.2.0. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

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

Hi Rafael, We’ve discussed why a license change is preferable over the span of several years now. I’m happy to explain over the phone, contact me off list and we can talk. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still don't see any justification in the text why a license change is >

This has already been discussed extensively in the public. The threads are available in the archives. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but I really don't think a private conversation is appropriate > for such discussions. > > If the motive cannot be explained in public I have no choice

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,

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 all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is

Hi, I have a licensing question: I'm curious if the fact maketree.py is GPLv2 causes any trouble for the rest of rsync (which is GPLv3 or later). -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

So this is just a general question, Is Asterisk really good? Reliability? Functionality? Customization's? I am coming from a Nortel world, were you pay for everything, and you can't delve into the software. But it seems that customization would be a great thing. Like, setting up a war-dialer to customer lists, incoming/outgoing faxes (that's possible with Asterisk, right?) and