similar to: DropOgg for MacOS.

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

Hi there, I just built libvorbis from anoncvs and found that a) some files are missing from lib/books when making dist and b) the GNU GPL instead of the LGPL is included in the package (contrary to what the README says). If you reply, please includ me in the Cc: because I'm not on the list. The missing files are: res0_160_1024_1.vqh res0_160_1024_2.vqh res0_160_1024_3.vqh

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

... > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > contributors. > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to > discuss such a case in an organization that contributed source code is > nearly impossible. > > Looking at the source code (my short

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

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 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

Hi, I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. But in order to do so I would first have to get a list of all the individual contributors to rsync and then be able to contact them

I can't understand what version of the LGPL you are using for the Wine source code. > Wine is free software. The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License. There are 2 links in your main page: the first links to the official LGPL v3 page http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html the second links to a page of the WineHQ site, showing the LGPL v2.1

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

As a follow-up to my email below: The input data frame to nnet() has dimensions: > dim(coreaff.trn.nn) [1] 5088 8 And the predictions from the neural network (35 records are dropped - see email below for more details) has dimensions: > pred <- predict(coreaff.nn1) > dim(pred) [1] 5053 1 So, the following line of R code does not work as the dimensions are

On Feb 12, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Talin wrote: > 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

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

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

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:03:05AM -0800, Yandell, Henri wrote: > We?re looking into using Hivex and came across something odd. While > the license of hivex.c is LGPL 2.1, it appears to require the GPL > 3.0 licensed gnulib package for a few minor functions ( full_read, > full_write and c_toupper ). There are also a few GPL 3.0 build > files. It has always been our intention to

Sorry for these multiple postings. I solved the problem using na.omit() to drop records with missing values for the time being. I will worry about imputation, etc. later. I calculated the sum of squared errors for 3 models, linear regression, neural networks, and support vector machines. This is the first run. Without doing any parameter tuning on the SVM or playing around with the number of

My company recently started using a R library from RCRAN that is licensed under the LGPL Version 2 or greater per the DESCRIPTION file, but contains no copy of the LGPL notice, or any copyright notice. I've grown accustomed to paying attention to copyright and licensing as a Debian package maintainer, and sent the author of the package an email expressing my concern. The author believed that

There's a problem with the license for ltdl.c when building with VC++. It is under the LGPL, with a special exception: As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built using GNU libtool, you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. The problem is,

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