similar to: GPL license file missing from cvs snaphot

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

Hi guys, the SUPER codec by Erightsoft http://www.erightsoft.net/SUPER.html contains lots of GPL and LGPL code: mplayer, ffmpeg, x264, musepack, theora, which they admit and give credit for. Still, their product is proprietary, and they insist on it. I tried to get the source through their forum, but they of course won't give it: http://www.erightsoft.net/Supforum.html I'll forward

One of our servers, running a bunch of jails, has issues when doing nightly dumps only if snapshots are enabled. This box was running 5.X and has been upgraded over time to 6.3. When running 5.X, we attempted to use snapshots on dump (-L) which resulted in almost nightly system hangs during the dump. We ran 6.X for months with no stability issues, backing up nightly w/o snapshots. Took the

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

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

For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement is bogus but you still want

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 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

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and > release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :( ??? Actually, you _can_. You just can't link it into the GPL kernel program. [ I'm not posting this to cross you. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. ] There is nothing in the GPL that prevents a GPL

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.

> 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

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

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

A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac? - Woody _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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

Hi all, I'm wondering if the GPL-2.0 licensed mbedTLS (that's the version in OpenWrt) is 'compatible' with NUT binaries (not including the Python or Perl binaries which aren't used in OpenWrt) which is GPL 2.1+ AIUI. Because mbedTLS is the default library for OpenWrt and NSS is not yet in OpenWrt, and because OpenSSL is considered incompatible (I seem to recall reading 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

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