similar to: Relicensing Xapian

The current plan for the next release series includes relicensing the C++ libxapian library in xapian-core as MPL. The remaining blockers for this are: * adding update support to the new honey backend (to replace glass) * adding support for RAM storage to honey (to replace inmemory) * moving some remote client and server code out of libxapian (or replacing it) I'm certainly still aiming

Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > The current plan for the next release series includes relicensing > the C++ libxapian library in xapian-core as MPL. The remaining > blockers for this are: > > * adding update support to the new honey backend (to replace glass) Just wondering if there's docs on what improvements users can expect from honey. Mainly smaller size?

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

On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as > this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL > in order to make the whole be under GPL. The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the whole. It requires that the whole "be licensed ... at no

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

> 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

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

> It is my interest to see my code used. In particular I am really excited > to see llvm/clang/lld/lldb/etc replacing more and more of the previous > components on these systems. I really don't want to harm that change. > > If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are OK with license X, I am OK with license X. Rafael, It is my understanding that Apache 2.0 licensed code will not be integrated

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 >

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 >

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

... > 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

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 >

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

This bottle of Quoi D?Neuf by Herv? Villemade, a primeur from the Loire, was a real pleasure, a thirst wine that you sip without second thoughts and restriction to the last drop : This Pinot Noir with a bit of Gamay is fruity, gouleyant and fresh. This proves that even tasted several months after its release, a Vin Nouveau can deliver. It arrived on the market on the third thursday of november

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> 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. >> >>> >>

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 02:16 AM, C Bergström wrote: > > A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? > Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to > relicense llvm? > > > Good question. I discussed this explicitly with

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

> > > > > > > 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