similar to: [LLVMdev] Question on License/GitHub

I'm working on a Java implementation of portions of LLVM and have a question about licensing. The project won't contain any LLVM source code although I can foresee using JNI stubs that link against LLVM libraries. It does however in many cases follow LLVM APIs. From my understanding of the University of Illinois/NCSA license this means: 1. I need to include the copyright notice

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 >

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

I am having the same problem. But, I cannot access to the following link for solution http://wiki.ncsa.uiuc.edu/wiki/Dell_PE1950_NIC_Firmware_Workaround Can someone send me the content of this link? Thanks. Pete, This may be relevant: http://wiki.ncsa.uiuc.edu/wiki/Dell_PE1950_NIC_Firmware_Workaround - Mike At 8/18/2006 09:40 AM Friday, Peter McEvoy wrote: Hi, I''ve run

On 29 October 2015 at 10:25, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the previously voiced concerns of incompatibilities between the > Apache and GPLv2 license, I'd like to add one more thing. > > I work on a, at this time mostly LLVM-unrelated [1], "GPLv2 or later" > licensed compiler: the Free Pascal Compiler. Some

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:44:45 +0100, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev wrote: <snip> > * How stable/fast/… is Polly today > * We build all of AOSP with rather restrictive compile-time limits > * Bootstrapping time of clang is regressed by 6% (at most) > * Removal of scalar dependences is today very generic and must be > sped up in the future > * Polly still

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

Does anyone see a need for a patch that allows Kerberos password authentication with the correct local options? I'm simply trying to get a feel for if it's worth my time to investigate it further. The issue is that we also use a patch that does Kerberos ticket passing and our ticket lifetime is slightly higher than the default 10 hours. Users experience different behavior when they

> 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

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=958 Summary: patch to support GSI GSSAPI mechanism Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.9p1 Platform: All URL: http://grid.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ssh/ OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: Miscellaneous

On 03/13/2013 07:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > LLVM's license includes a binary redistribution clause: > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license Hi Chris, the problem with the binary redistribution clause is that the bindings will not be linked with any part of LLVM. The bindings will load an LLVM shared library (dll/so/dylib) at runtime and thus an application compiled

On Friday, 08 February 2002 at 13:12, Samuel Hathaway wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Akos Maroy wrote: > > > Jack Moffitt wrote: > > > > > Why are you writing clients that don't use libshout? > > > > darkice doesn't use libshout either. > > > > I guess the main reason to have a protocol is that anyone can connect > > using it? >

Hi, I've noticed that http://llvm.org/status/ hasn't been updated for a while, so I tought that some of you might find the following information interesting and/or encouraging... For benchmarking the stuff I'm working on I needed to compile a number of open-source packages. The settings I used: AS=llvm-as lLD=llvm-ld AR=llvm-ar CXX=llvm-g++ CC=llvm-gcc CFLAGS="-g

Hello, I am trying to mount a lustre filesystem thru an ib2ip gateway. The MDS''s have infiniband connections. The client nodes are tcp/ip connections. I am able to route between the client nodes and the MDS''s. I have the following in /etc/fstab: abe-mds1 at o2ib0,abe-mds2 at o2ib0:/home/client /abehome lustre _netdev,flock 0 0 I get the following when trying

Howdy all... Reading with interest the thread(s) about REvolution, package licensing and the requirements of the GPL. First of all, let me introduce myself?. ?I joined REvolution Computing in February, after working for nearly 4 years for Intel as an open source strategist and before that for 6 years at Sun, where I established the first corporate open source programs office. ?I'm a Member of

Hello Theora developers, I'm doing some cursory research into Theora's IP status in preparation for asking Apple to reconsider the possibility of shipping an implementation. I have a few questions and I'm hoping knowledgeable people can help out. 1) What are the terms of any patent licenses or disclaimers, and do they have field of use restrictions or limitations on code for

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1702 Summary: PreferredAuthentications setting doesn't work when spaces are used as documented Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.3p1 Platform: Other OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh

Hello. I'd like to ask about license issue. Now I'm planning to make and sell some measurement system controlled by PC. There is no technical issue but I don't have enough information about license. I will do the following, 1) Install CentOS and my applications on the PC. 2) Sell the PC as a measurement device. 3) Distribute DVD made from CentOS iso image file to the user if

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.