similar to: relicense module spawn-pipe

> > > > > > > I guess I could write an initial protocol specification - but it would > > > not be complete and I wouldn't be able to relicense my library to > > > LGPL anyway. > > > > > > So I guess I have convinced myself that it is not worth the effort > > > trying. Time is probably better spent coding ;) And that's OK

Hi Andrey, 2016-01-23 4:02 GMT+01:00 Andrey Gursky <andrey.gursky at e-mail.ua>: ... > If they don't want to bother with just discussing, why would they take a > big effort to claim? And your proposition for LGPL is not very > different in opposite to BSD or public domain. Yes, I agree. The risk of having a future lawsuit against my project would be pretty small if I

Am 07.01.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Per Lundqvist: > Hi, > > I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) > which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to > provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would > therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. > > But in order to do so I would first have to get a

Hi, from my point of view: On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:48:09 +0100 Per Lundqvist <perlundq at gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > > contributors. > > > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to >

... > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > contributors. > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to > discuss such a case in an organization that contributed source code is > nearly impossible. > > Looking at the source code (my short

libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns out to be "GPL". Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking the license of 'hash'. We'd therefore like to request that

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns >> out to be "GPL". >> >> Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate >> GPL'd utility program,

On 08/28/2013 11:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns > out to be "GPL". > > Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate > GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the > core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking >

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns > out to be "GPL". > > Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate > GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the > core library, copying the same code from the utility but

Bcc'd to everyone who have sent me patches to dovecot-auth or related code. Once in a while people ask me if Dovecot's authentication server code could be relicensed to BSD so they could use it for their project. Usually they have been other BSD-licensed open source projects which just prefer not to use LGPL code. Now there's again this company asking me to give them a bit less

Hi, I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. But in order to do so I would first have to get a list of all the individual contributors to rsync and then be able to contact them

This is an update on the current status of the relicensing, but also an opportunity to give feedback. Sorry it's rather long, but I think it's necessary to summarise the situation - there are probably list members who weren't even born at the start of the history of this! Xapian is currently licensed as GPLv2+, but isn't something we actually chose for Xapian, but rather due to a

Hi Martin, 2016-01-23 18:41 GMT+01:00 Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net>: > It seems like yajsync is a reimplementation of rsync's protocol by looking > at the GPL'd C rsync source, but it doesn't actually include any code from > rsync. Is that right? Yes correct, it is a complete rewrite in Java. Most of it is completely different, only some small parts of the actual

Seeing how http://flac.sourceforge.net/license.html stresses that libflac and libflac++ are licensed under the New BSD License, would it be possible to relicense include/share/alloc.h from GPL 2.1+ to the New BSD License so that all of libflac and libflac++ become licensed under the New BSD License as intended? Best Regards Magnus Blomfelt

Afternoon all. I was discussing the current licensing of Xapian and how it influences the way we work with someone at another OSS project recently, and although the upshot is likely to be that they'll amend their license (it's a corporate foundation, and GPL compatibility is something they desire for precisely this reason), it did prompt me to think about how we're tracking where we

> 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, I realise that the GPL license question has been discussed in 2003 and in 2007, extensively. Back then, the conclusion seem to have been that in-process usage is not possible for most use-cases and that instead, a network layer/IPC mechanism is required to use Xapian with any non-GPL software. I think the project is severely undermining its own potential success. I see that there are even

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> 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

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

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 >