similar to: Help Samba license

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I would like to see Xapian used more widely in the PHP community. The major obstacle is that binaries of the PHP extension cannot be distributed. I've been reading earlier discussions on this and wonder if there's now an option. My starting points were https://trac.xapian.org/wiki/FAQ/PHP%20Bindings%20Package and the discussion at https://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191. One comment

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

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 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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================== "Patience is the companion of wisdom." Saint Augustine ============================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 3.2.0. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================== "Patience is the companion of wisdom." Saint Augustine ============================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 3.2.0. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under

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

Here is a change we're instituting immediately to make it easier for corporations to contribute code changes to Samba whilst still retaining copyright ownership of the contributed code. Feel free to ask any questions on the samba-technical at samba.org list. We'd like to thank our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center for helping us to make this change. Regards, The Samba Team.

Here is a change we're instituting immediately to make it easier for corporations to contribute code changes to Samba whilst still retaining copyright ownership of the contributed code. Feel free to ask any questions on the samba-technical at samba.org list. We'd like to thank our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center for helping us to make this change. Regards, The Samba Team.

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

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

I don't speak on behalf of any developers, but most times it is very difficult to change the license of an open source project, as the consent of all contributors would be needed which is nearly impossible. There are ways, but I don't think it is very likely. Further information about linking gpl is widely available on the net. Afaik it is always allowed to link to any library as long as