similar to: Vorbis license terms?

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

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

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, I am working on a windows NT version of openssh. It's mostly working (ssh.exe, ssh-keygen.exe to be precise), except for some minor UI issues. however, i have a couple of questions about making the port available: 1. minor issue: My port is based on the openbsd ssh source (2.5.2). Is this acceptable, or should I base it on the portable source ? I think I know the answer to that one. If

Hello there. I'm seeing with a third party library vendor, wich creates components for signal and audio processing for Delphi and BCB, the way to integrate support for OggVorbis, but there are some license issues that I don't know/understand. In plain text: can he create and distribute a component that uses the code available in the Windows SDK, either in the DLL presentation and/or

I manage the audio-video section of the GNU web site http://audio-video.gnu.org/. I have tried the Theora codec and am very impressed by the level of integration with free desktops and the bit rate/quality combinations. I intend to move all video content to the Theora codec partly for technical reasons but mainly to promote free and open formats. I do have longer term worries, projecting

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

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

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

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

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.

Hello, I believe that ZFS and it''s concepts is truly revolutionary to the point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux. Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native Linux? If not, is it legal to write

> 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

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

-----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

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 intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who

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

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

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