similar to: GPLv2-only code in R?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the samba4 HOW-TO on the wiki and I have followed it to using Ubuntu server versions 11.10 and 10.04. I have been unsuccessful at step 4 running the provision script. I have run the following commands to get to get to this point: $ sudo git clone git://git.samba.org/samba.git samba-master; cd samba-master $ sudo apt-get install build-essential libattr1-dev libblkid-dev libgnutls-dev

My question is regarding the possibility of someone wiretapping the communication and repeat the action. What if an intruder notice that there's a secure session starting (by guessing at the dst IP address and unintelligible payload) and then start capturing all the packets on this session for the purpose of repeating the whole session again? The secure user could add/delete interfaces and

Hi all, I have a machine running Ubuntu that I run Asterisk 1.4.x on and it runs very well. On that machine I have a SIP phone. I have configured a netgear wgt634u with asterisk and a SIP phone and linked the two systems together via IAX. Audio from Ubuntu to netgear is not bad, audio from netgear to ubuntu is unintelligible. Any clues as to whether this will work? Configuration suggestions?

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.

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

Hi all, We have just set up trixbox latest with a Rhino r1t1 card, hooked up to a plain E1 PRI line. We call fine SIP to SIP, but as soon as we make a call from SIP to PSTN all sounds become unintelligible screeching or static kind of noise on both ends, when we call PSTN to SIP the PSTN side seemingly OK at least we hear no screeching sound, but the SIP side is a even worse screeching

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion from almost a year ago, started back here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html As described in that email, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be legal advice in the formal sense. That said, I have spoken with many

Hello, I recently bought an Auralic Aries Mini streamer. This little streamer can also function as a NAS when mounting a laptop drive or ssd inside, via samba. The box did not come with a media containing source code and did not include a GPL written offer. So I asked Auralic to provide the source code for all GPlv2 and v3 packages used. For the Linux kernel and their modifications, they asked

Who am I to say this? I am only a lowly user and would-be admin, but it seems to me that one of the most useful features of an AD environment, GPOs, is not fully trust-able under Samba because of instability and ensuing fear, before and after each update, related to sysvol and who knows what. I still love you, though.

On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >> >> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then.

On 06/15/2018 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified >> source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > Not

On 15 June 2018 at 21:07, Keith Keller via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: > On 2018-06-16, Johnny Hughes via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: >> >> You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you >> get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of >> the terms of your subscription. > > Is this