similar to: alternate licensing for package data?

I think this is covered well by the CRAN repository policy: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html The two key license requirements are that: 1) CRAN must have a perpetual license to distribute the package 2) The package license should be listed here: https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/share/licenses/license.db Packages with licenses not included in that list are generally not

Martyn Plummer <plummerm <at> iarc.fr> writes: > > I think this is covered well by the CRAN repository policy: > http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html > > The two key license requirements are that: > 1) CRAN must have a perpetual license to distribute the package > 2) The package license should be listed here: >

On 22 April 2015 at 11:34, Roger Bivand wrote: | While I agree with Martyn with respect to code, documentation, and | vignettes, the point Ben raises is relevant and not obvious. Data sets in | say GLP-licensed packages are on occasion challenged by Debian packagers Not generally the packagers (who get frustrated by this like everybody else) but by the "ftp-masters" teams who look over

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd <at> debian.org> writes: > On 22 April 2015 at 11:34, Roger Bivand wrote: > | While I agree with Martyn with respect to code, documentation, and > | vignettes, the point Ben raises is relevant and not obvious. Data sets in > | say GLP-licensed packages are on occasion challenged by Debian packagers [GPL] > Not generally the packagers

While using DTrace to track down a problem recently, we came across an unexpected restriction: the compiler will not permit different speculations to be committed in the same instance of a probe identifier. For instance, consider the following useless D script: #!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s #pragma D option nspec=2 BEGIN { spec1 = speculation(); spec2 = speculation(); } END {

I''m considering using rubytorrent as the transport in a distributed build system. (DamageControl - a rails-based continuous integration server similar to buildbot - http://buildbot.sourceforge.net/ and bitten - http://bitten.cmlenz.net/) DamageControl is going to be licensed under a BSD license, so I was wondering if you''d consider providing a dual license for rubytorrent that

hello * 1. has anybody W2K8R2 Terminal Servers up and running in a samba domain ? 2. dito an license server, who is also joined into the domain ( w2k8r2 ) ? ( i have seen references to this combination working with the lic srv beeing on workgroup mode, but this is only possible if the lic srv is not joined in the domain. Worked fine with us as long as TS and Lic SRV were

Hi All, I was testing out a synchronization tool / backup tool for Mac OS X today called "iMsafe", and I noticed that under the hood it uses rsync -- yet the author gives absolutely no credit to rsync whatsoever. Basically, it's a pretty GUI / scheduler with a copy of rsync built in (which it calls "ditto"). To verify this, simply download iMsafe, and then open up the

In an effort to ensure that every licensing issue brought to our attention is handled fully and openly, we have created a new issue tracker for this purpose. It is located at: http://licensing.digium.com The tracker is open to the public, and we encourage all interested parties to post their concerns and participate in the discussions involved in resolving them. Digium's will actively

David: I am trying to contact someone regarding Compiz licensing. I got your name by doing a search on "who to contact for compiz licensing" which sent me to a web article: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/2007-February/001413.html Can you direct me to someone (name, phone number) with whom I can discuss. Thanks and regards, -- Pradeep Jain pjain at

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

Am Mittwoch, den 14.05.2008, 11:27 +0400 schrieb Anton Korobeynikov: > Hello, Razvan > > > after that I use only the Windows interface to it (like any other > > proprietary Windows software does) , GPL forbids me to do that. > That's due to nature of the interface. Binary interface to codec make > the proprietary application 'derived work'. This is what the

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 23:36 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't want to discourage you, but you are basically asking for > interpretation of legal documents... > If you really really need to know the answer to questions like these, > the best bet is to hire legal council. Chris is right. I would add that it sounds like you are already getting nonsense responses. However,

Hi, > If you distribute the GPLed library and the proprietary application > separately, and make sure that they are linked at installation time, the > link step creates a derived work indeed but that's inconsequential > because it isn't redistributed. Interestingly enough, you need a linker at the target system to do that. And guess what this discussion started at :-p Gr.

On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >>> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs >>> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files >>> as a

On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> >>>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed.

Just wondering. http://www.vorbis.com/ Regards...martin -- Maslow's Maxim: If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail.

Licensing info for the G723.1 codec, direct from the holding company that licenses the codec. http://www.dspg.com/technology/LicensePricing.html As you can see they want a LOT of money. This is why I doubt there will ever be G.723.1 codec available fro Asterisk. -- BTEL Consulting 850-484-4535 x2111 (Office) 504-595-3916 x2111 (Experimental) 877-552-0838 (Backup Phone)

Cisco has a part number SW-SM-UL-7960 for licensing SIP on their CP-7960 phones. Is this actually required to be purchased to keep everything on the above-board when using Cisco's SIP phone with Asterisk, or is this for something else? Ray. -- Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.

>I'm interested in the g729 diff you posted... > >I've applied the patch, but I don't seem to have the prerequisites to >compile it... I tried downloading the other code available from >Intel, but even the 'eval' version won't install without a FlexLM >license (damn license managers...). Am I heading the right direction, >or is there somewhere else I