similar to: [libnbd PATCH] maint: Update reference to license info

On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 02:52:58PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > Our README file claims that license info is in LICENSE, but we did not > have a file by that name in the tarball. At least we did correctly > ship COPYING.LIB since the library is LGPLv2+. > --- > > The LGPL requires that the user also receive a copy of the GPL, since > anyone can upgrade their copy from LGPL to

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:03:05AM -0800, Yandell, Henri wrote: > We?re looking into using Hivex and came across something odd. While > the license of hivex.c is LGPL 2.1, it appears to require the GPL > 3.0 licensed gnulib package for a few minor functions ( full_read, > full_write and c_toupper ). There are also a few GPL 3.0 build > files. It has always been our intention to

This merely enforces (wrt gnulib) the existing convention that libguestfs is covered by LGPLv2+ . >From 99a8fab0fa0474b4ab3959a5bd5867779a1d08d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering <meyering at redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:01:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH libguestfs] build: tell gnulib-tool that this is an lgplv2+ library * bootstrap: Invoke gnulib-tool with --lgpl=2. ---

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 the license of 'hash'. We'd therefore like to request that

Borrow an idea from nbdkit (in turn borrowed from qemu) on making patches easier to review by sorting diffs based on filename. --- We can tweak this order if desired, but the order presented here made enough sense to me. Makefile.am | 1 + scripts/git.orderfile | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) create mode 100644

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0100, 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,

This borrows from a trick in libvirt - by defining $(NULL) to expand to an empty string, we can more consistently write multi-line macros where all useful lines terminate with \, making it easier to add/remove lines without worrying about whether \ needs to be touched up on neighboring lines. --- Looks big, but is fairly mechanical. I'm also doing a similar patch for nbdkit, where it would

hi, i talked to timo about re-licensing the sasl part of dovecot under a more liberal license (bsd/lgpl e.g.). it would allow the integration of it in bsd base systems. another reason i would be interested is adding sasl support to svnserve [1]. so here is my question: what is your oppinion about this issue? any objections from contributors? darix [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- irssi

Hey guys, I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can. >From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in: > A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the

On 10/27/20 1:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > This library proved useful in nbdkit where we need to construct an > array or vector of arbitrary objects, with the easy ability to append > at the end. Wherever code uses realloc(3) to build an array of > objects is a candidate for replacement by this library. > --- > Makefile.am | 1 + >

There was mention of this [r-sig-fedora at r-project.org] mailing list on one of the other R lists overnight. I thought the list needed a bit of posting, as I could not recall seeing content recently on it. I cross post to the Red Hat hosted list as well, it raises issues relevant there as well I have been packaging in support of many of the financial packages at CRAN and in R-Forge [

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:48:31PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/27/20 1:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > This library proved useful in nbdkit where we need to construct an > > array or vector of arbitrary objects, with the easy ability to append > > at the end. Wherever code uses realloc(3) to build an array of > > objects is a candidate for replacement by this

gettime hash human memcpy openat-die openat-safer quote quotearg readlinkat save-cwd symlinkat timespec utimens xstrtol xstrtoll xstrtoumax xvasprintf I didnt track where they are uses, some of them arent used directly.

I was a little surprised to find that LIBNBD_TLS_ALLOW worked out of the box, so I had to examine the logs whereupon I saw the magic message ... libnbd: debug: nbd1: nbd_connect_command: server refused TLS (policy), continuing with unencrypted connection I don't believe this path has ever been tested before. It's possible the tests could be improved if they actually checked for this

Two simple patches which make libnbd compile on FreeBSD. Are we OK to copy common/include/byte-swapping.h from nbdkit? There is no license issue that I know of. Should we put it in lib/ or create a common/ directory? The header file is actually also needed by the tests (follow up patch for that) so putting it in common/ might make more sense. Some notes if you want to compile on FreeBSD: -

I am looking for some advice on licenses. Here is my situation: Over the last couple years, I have developed a rather large number of fire department analysis functions. I am in the process of trying to publish some packages to make these functions available to the public. I am trying to release two packages that essentially define S4 classes for common types of fire department data. Then, I

Please be patient and read this... Can AJ please change the license of the wine-launcher (like mono does)? You can still keep the libraries under LGPL. Please note proprietary is not bad and no oss w/o proprietary... You can make WINE a standard of binaries because of competition of Linux/BSD/Solaris binaries. It would be good for OS developers if you Change the license of the WINE launcher.

> ok, > This is something I want to ask for some time now :) > Does this mean that License issues works with wine as it > works with the Linux kernel? > The Linux kernel is GPLed, however if a module (driver) is > dynamic loadable, it can have a proprietary license. > Is this the way it works with wine? The core (wine itself) > is LGPL, however its modules (builtin

Possibly more of a legal question than a technical development question, but here goes. In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can write R packages and distribute them under licenses not compatible with GPL, by making the relevant header files available under the LGPL. This was an explicit change that was made in February 2001, and allows for DLLs that

A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac? - Woody _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx