similar to: Asterisk and UniMRCP Licensing

I'd like to announce the release of an open source connector bridge for Asterisk and UniMRCP. The connector bridge is an implementation of Asterisk's Generic Speech API using UniMRCP client stack. This module allows Asterisk to connect to MRCPv2 or MRCPv1 compliant servers for speech recognition. It also allows to offload Asterisk using client/server architecture MRCP provides. Moreover,

When I look at the lastest UniMRCP manual, they only mention as high as Asterisk 13. Does anybody know if I need to do anything to allow it to work on Asterisk 14 and, if so, what that is?

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

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

Le vendredi 26 juillet 2019 à 14:01 +0100, Peter Bowyer a écrit : > Hello, > > I would like to see Xapian used more widely in the PHP community. I would like that too. We recently removed a Xapian searching feature from our Free Software because it required a process too complex for most of our users to install it (and update it) on their servers. [...] > The GPL FAQ says at >

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

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

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

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

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

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

Hi Rafael, We’ve discussed why a license change is preferable over the span of several years now. I’m happy to explain over the phone, contact me off list and we can talk. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still don't see any justification in the text why a license change is >

I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. 2) The apache CLA in general gives too much power (e.g. the power to relicense arbitrarily going forward) to the organization (in this case, llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>) which can deter contributions from folks who don’t want relicensing to be a simple act.

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

This has already been discussed extensively in the public. The threads are available in the archives. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but I really don't think a private conversation is appropriate > for such discussions. > > If the motive cannot be explained in public I have no choice

It is my understanding that R is licensed under the GPL with the exception of a few header files for the purposes of linking binary code with R under non-GPL licenses. However, the R-base package itself is licensed under the GPL, as are many (but not all) packages in CRAN. Furthermore, basically any R script will use functionality from R-base. As I understand it, the situation isn't

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,

Hi all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is