similar to: Heads up: new license & dev policy is happening in ~1 hour!!!

Greetings all! # Summary - We will put the new LLVM license and developer policy in place for all subsequent commits next Friday (2019-01-18). - Commit access will be stopped while this is done (starting 3pm PST, hopefully under 3 hours). - We will restore commit access for everyone covered by relevant corporate and/or individual agreements. - Others will need to take some steps to restore commit

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:10:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Let's start with: In just about every country in the world, anyone > > contributing on behalf of their company are exercising their employers > > copyright (in most cases, even if they do it in

Hi Rafael, I believe that all of these points are covered in the first round of discussion, including the FreeBSD team’s position. -Chris > On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay, I was on vacations. > > Ed, what is the FreeBSD position about the apache version 2 in base? A > quick search

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

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be

> > > > Again, as stated before, both of these issues are covered by the apache > license. > > > > It has a built-in CLA that explicitly grants both copyright and patent > > rights from contributors when they make contributions to the work. > > Huh? How can employee X of company Y contributing a patch grant any > patent rights on behalf of Y? > >

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd. One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other,

> 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

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

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. >> >>> >>

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

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.

Hello. We are trying to install R on our network, and I wanted to ask if there is a user license agreement. I will be grateful if somebody can send me a link to it; if one exists. Thank you very much ******************************************* Antonio Paredes USDA- Center for Veterinary Biologics Biometrics Unit 510 South 17th Street, Suite 104 Ames, IA 50010 (515) 232-5785 [[alternative

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

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

Hi all, I'm currently writing an R package and want to declare a GPL2 license. According to the license agreement, I'm supposed to display: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation ... See the GNU General Public License for more details."

> 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.

Does anybody know where I can find the Rails license agreement? Thanks, David -- David Katz david.katz@gmail.com

*********************************************************** Sigrid M. Volko, Ph.D. Assistant Director Office of Licensing and Technology Development Johns Hopkins University 100 N. Charles Street, 5th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 phone: 410-516-4962 fax: 410-516-5113 This e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential

Hi, Earlier I was having libvirt-0.7.5 but now I have installed 0.9.8 version of libvirt now. I am trying to start libvirt daemon using the command below but daemon it is not getting started and the PID file is not getting created. Tried /usr/loval/sbin/libvirtd -d option too. In that case I am not getting any error but PID file is not getting created in this case too.