similar to: license

Just re-posting so swig-devel get so see it. It's an architectural solution whereby swig has the power to banish licensing conflicts that may exist between any imported library and the target system for which swig is generating a module. -----Original Message----- From: "Sam Liddicott" <sam@liddicott.com> To: "Alexander Lind" <malte@webstay.org>; "William

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

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

Hi, The Perl module Search::Xapian's README file ends with these lines: ===================================================================== This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. ===================================================================== (http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/OLLY/Search-Xapian-1.2.4.0/README) But

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 >

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 Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 10:19:33PM +0100, Eric Lindblad wrote: > https://www.php.net/license/index.php > > The above webpage indicates a change in licensing from PHP 4 onwards. > > A possible approach might be to send an enquiry to the developers as to > whether the logo exclusively would be covered under the PHP License v3.01, > with the obligation

(Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk) On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: | Aside from R there are the add-on packages. | | A frequency table showing the licenses of the CRAN packages indicates | that the all or almost all packages have some sort of free software license | with GPL licenses being most common. (A few packages have restrictions |

The disclaimer automatically added and is not intended to limit legitimate discourse, and any code I write for this is expected to be licensed under whatever license the original work is using. I haven't tried compiling latest code under visual studio yet (is this possible?). I wonder if there is a way to tell gcc to not mangle the names during cross compile. I was able to successfully

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 30 Nov 2014, at 17:51, Abhishek Singh Kushwah <abhishek18kushwah at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Two of the implementation of algorithms has already been rejected > > previously due to licenses both being the implementation of porter > > but our xapian use implementation in snowball which i assume is > > under GPL. The only cases I can think you might be

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

Hello, can I use Xapian in a non-free software? ehsan.

Hello. I've written the bindings for the Concept Application Server for Xapian (and included into the default package). The sources are available here: http://www.radgs.com/downloads/standard.search.xapian-1.0.tar.gz And the Concept Include files here: http://www.radgs.com/downloads/xapian-include-1.0.tgz Also, i've rewritten 2 examples in Concept:

By analogy with maintainer(), I suggest extending license() to give the licensing terms of packages as well as R itself when prompted. Below is a small patch in that direction. This won't break anything and imposes no significant maintenance burden; it has the advantage of making it ever so marginally easier to know package licenses. Given the existence of license forms like GPL >=2, I

Dear Xapian community, We've been looking for a search engine to integrate with our Rails applications. Xapian seems to be the most robust and mature of any open source solution out there. But, there were no Ruby bindings. So... I've started work on Ruby SWIG bindings for Xapian. My work is still alpha-quality; expect bugs and expect API changes before we're done. It's

ACM Software Copyright and License Agreement I have often seen the use of routines from the ACM Collected Algorithms, i.e. <netlib.org/toms/> (CALGO, or Trans. On Math. Software, TOMS), in Open Source programs, maybe also in some R packages --- and sometimes these programs are distributed under the GPL license, sometimes under proprietary licenses, e.g. in Scilab. The use of these CALGO

Hi. I have problem with running xapian php plugin on Fedora 17 64 bit. Earlier I had problem with Fedora 16 64 bit. After installing from yum repo or compiling from source I was getting error : PHP Warning: PHP Startup: Unable to load dynamic library '/usr/lib64/php/modules/xapian.so' - /usr/lib64/php/modules/xapian.so: undefined symbol: zend_error_noreturn in Unknown on line 0 On Fedora

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >> The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is >> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered >> code. > > Fortunately judges know better than you.... > > If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that

Copyright (c) 2020 Alexander Slesarev Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copyof this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), todeal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation therights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/orsell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to