similar to: Revisiting the PHP binding license issues

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 >

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> In particular, various corporate lawyers were worried about this > scenario that neuters defensive patents): > > Lawyers see risk everywhere, so i'll just go with "various corporate >

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 Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't

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 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

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 >

> 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 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.

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

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.

The original intent of the virtio header relicensing from 2008 was to make sure anyone can implement compatible devices/drivers. The virtio-ccw was omitted by mistake. We have an ack from the only contributor as well as the maintainer from IBM, so it's not too late to fix that. Make it dual-licensed with GPLv2, as the whole kernel is GPL2. Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at

The original intent of the virtio header relicensing from 2008 was to make sure anyone can implement compatible devices/drivers. The virtio-ccw was omitted by mistake. We have an ack from the only contributor as well as the maintainer from IBM, so it's not too late to fix that. Make it dual-licensed with GPLv2, as the whole kernel is GPL2. Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at

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

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

I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is just flamebait if I've ever seen it... --------------- #1 Is the submarine patent risk really that bad? (What's driving this) #2 Pragmatically have "you" even considered how to execute on this relicense plan? a. What if one of the copyright holders doesn't agree? b. What audit procedure do you plan to use c.

-----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