similar to: Copyright versus Licenses

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

Hello, I am new to Cortado and I am very interested in playing video in some of my Java applets using the Theora decoder. I would like to write a LGPL library to use the decoders in Processing (see processing.org). I prefer LGPL over GPL because it allows a wider usage of the library. The core libraries of Processing are released under LGPL as well. I would like to use com.fluendo.plugin and

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.

Afternoon all. I was discussing the current licensing of Xapian and how it influences the way we work with someone at another OSS project recently, and although the upshot is likely to be that they'll amend their license (it's a corporate foundation, and GPL compatibility is something they desire for precisely this reason), it did prompt me to think about how we're tracking where we

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

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Noted in the readme that rsync is licensed under GPL, and have some questions about this. Reading through a couple different places on the internet, of people wondering why there are few to no GUI front-ends (are there any good ones? if so, much of my questions here can be disregarded). I think I found one project, a PHP-GTK interface, that

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

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

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.

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

We spent a little time here taking a look at the Vorbis licensing scheme and ran into some possible issues. In particular, the Vorbis FAQ page here says that the LGPL license applies to Vorbis libraries and GPL applies to source code (at least that's what I gather). http://www.vorbis.com/faq.html#flic http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html Reading the text of these Gnu

Note I'm not asking for any legal advice here obviously, simply what the intention of the R foundation is with regard to allowing commercial connection to R. I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like this may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle. In the

I saw your post and read the replies with great interest. Did you draw any conclusions from the /. replies? Where do you think you might go with the licensing issues for embedded systems? I would vote for the BSD license approach myself. Here's another licensing question. Your source code lays out the functionality of the FLAC codec and the file formats. What if someone comes along

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Looks cool Talin. > > Personally it would be nice if it was checked into llvm.org, but is > wxWidgets LGPL like license > an issue for llvm's repository? > There should be no problem with the license. wxWidgets is indeed distributed under a modified version of the LGPL (with a special