similar to: License status of CRAN packages

There was mention of this [r-sig-fedora at r-project.org] mailing list on one of the other R lists overnight. I thought the list needed a bit of posting, as I could not recall seeing content recently on it. I cross post to the Red Hat hosted list as well, it raises issues relevant there as well I have been packaging in support of many of the financial packages at CRAN and in R-Forge [

Hi, please, can SOMEBODY help me to find the right characters to fit into the field \details{ ... ... License: \tab ???? \cr } of the description file for a new R-package? When building the package I always get: * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING Non-standard license specification: What license is it under? Last time I just used "GPL" and it worked, this time it

Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum. mdowle > It appears that ParallelR

Dear All, I would like to propose adding the OSL-3.0 license to the list of "standard" licenses bundled with R: Index: share/licenses/license.db =================================================================== --- share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733) +++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy) @@ -317,3 +317,12 @@ URL:

Hi all, We are busy developing some software (some is web based, others not) and I am having a bit of hard time understanding (or rather, choosing) a license model to work with, We will offer some free software (PHP based scripts, and even Windows based applications) and for this I'm sure the GPL, or even LGPL (for the network side?) will work fine. But, we also need to suppose these

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

Hey guys, I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can. >From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in: > A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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.

On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 02:52:58PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > 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

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

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

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.

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