similar to: Linking libsmbclient with GPLv2 Code

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

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

-----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

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Release Announcements ===================== This is the third preview release of Samba 3.2.0. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under the version 3 of

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Release Announcements ===================== This is the third preview release of Samba 3.2.0. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/. Please be aware that Samba is now distributed under the version 3 of

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ================================= Release Notes for Samba 3.2.0rc2 June 10, 2008 ================================= This is the second release candidate of Samba 3.2.0. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ================================= Release Notes for Samba 3.2.0rc2 June 10, 2008 ================================= This is the second release candidate of Samba 3.2.0. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Preamble: Please help us testing this release candidate! If there are no major catastrophes, it will become the first major release of Samba 3.2.0. It might take a few hours until the files will be spread to all mirrors. ================================= Release Notes for Samba 3.2.0rc1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Preamble: Please help us testing this release candidate! If there are no major catastrophes, it will become the first major release of Samba 3.2.0. It might take a few hours until the files will be spread to all mirrors. ================================= Release Notes for Samba 3.2.0rc1

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

It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version of the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous over a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as was mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the corresponding source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would be required for

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

On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >> >> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then.

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

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 Jun 22, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > >> On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >>> >>> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser