similar to: Samba license

Hi, I want to use library of samba that license is "GPLv2" in my program that is proprietary. The source code version of samba is 3.0.6. Is it possible to modify the license to "LGPL"? Thanks.

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

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.

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'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

Hello, CentOS team and everyone who cares about CentOS, Huawei release an Euler OS, which is an distribution based on CentOS. http://developer.huawei.com/ict/en/site-euleros/euleros-introduction According to CentOS's statement, CentOS is distributed under the GPLv2 License. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7.4.1708/os/x86_64/EULA The GPL license requires the modified version to be

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

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

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

On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On 17 Apr 2017, at 15:37, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> ---- Exceptions to the Apache 2.0 License: —— >> >> As an exception, if, as a result of your compiling your source code, portions of this Software are embedded into an Object form of such source code,

Hello, Peter, thanks for your reply 1. Huawei DOES change the distribution EULA, if type in the following command: vi /usr/share/eula/eula.en_US you can see it changed to "HUAWEI EulerOS-2.0" which is a copyright one, let alone original GPL license. According to CentOS Linux EULA The Distribution is released as GPLv2. Individual packages in the distribution come with their own

> 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

Hi Rafael, I believe that all of these points are covered in the first round of discussion, including the FreeBSD team’s position. -Chris > On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay, I was on vacations. > > Ed, what is the FreeBSD position about the apache version 2 in base? A > quick search

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be

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

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

Greetings I have found next paragraph in Licence file(source root) "Digium, Inc. (formerly Linux Support Services) holds copyright and/or sufficient licenses to all components of the Asterisk package, and therefore can grant, at its sole discretion, the ability for companies, individuals, or organizations to create proprietary or Open Source (even if not GPL) modules which may be dynamically

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