similar to: licensing

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

> 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

Test 1 by Eric Lindblad 07-09-2015 http://www.ericlindblad.blogspot.com The 'ambiguous overload' error cited 28-08-2015 was unaffected from adding the below #ifdef following incidents of the string #include <sys/types> in all relevant xapian-core-1.2.21 files. http://sourceforge.net/projects/libuuid/ libuuid-1.0.3.tar.gz the following lines can be added to uuidP.h from the

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 >

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

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 01.06.2012, at 08:14, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On May 31, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> I'm not sure that this solves the problem. The reason we have dual licenses for the runtime stuff is that we don't want the UIUC license (which has a binary attribution

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 Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com > > wrote: > >> >> On 01.06.2012, at 08:14, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>

gnu_getopt.h by Eric Lindblad 07-09-2015 http://www.ericlindblad.blogspot.com Subsequent to the compile of libxapian.so.22.6.8 and libxapian.a there are executable source files using gnu_getopt.h which has an #ifdef __CYGWIN__, perhaps that file would need attention in order for compile to proceed on my modified SFU Interix 3.5 setup The 1 'ambiguous overload' report on SFU Interix I

> 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.

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 Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com>wrote: > > On 01.06.2012, at 08:14, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > > On May 31, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> I'm not sure that this solves the problem.

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. >> >>> >>

Can''t get this?...I''m close I think, my calculation appears to be working, but.... when i access duration = <%= @enquiry.course_duration %><br> in my final view it''s blank.. course_duration is getting set to null but works for the calculation? controller.. ---------- class EnquiriesController < ApplicationController layout ''welcome''

Eric, please keep these discussions on list. J > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Eric Lindblad <geirfuglaps at yahoo.com> > Subject: Interix issue resolved / Eric Lindblad > Date: 10 September 2015 10:01:06 BST > To: James Aylett <james-xapian at tartarus.org> > > J., > > Looks like the 'ambiguous overload' error* was due to Interix gcc-3.3

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

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.

On May 31, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I'm not sure that this solves the problem. The reason we have dual licenses for the runtime stuff is that we don't want the UIUC license (which has a binary attribution clause) to affect stuff built with the compiler. Saying that "clang -fasan produces code that has to binary attribute the LLVM license" is pretty lame.