similar to: Is R GPL or LGPL (or can I write a commercial front end to R)?

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

Hello, I am new to Cortado and I am very interested in playing video in some of my Java applets using the Theora decoder. I would like to write a LGPL library to use the decoders in Processing (see processing.org). I prefer LGPL over GPL because it allows a wider usage of the library. The core libraries of Processing are released under LGPL as well. I would like to use com.fluendo.plugin and

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > Nope ... I can't build that with GNU gcc and against GNU glibc and > release it ... sorry, no OpenAFS :( ??? Actually, you _can_. You just can't link it into the GPL kernel program. [ I'm not posting this to cross you. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. ] There is nothing in the GPL that prevents a GPL

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm

For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement is bogus but you still want

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

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

I've started working on a pure-java port of Theora under the LGPL, as a subproject of FMJ, the open-source implementation of JMF. It is similar to and dependent on the jogg/jorbis libraries from jcraft. The Cortado implementation is nice, but since it is GPL, that is too restrictive for FMJ, which is LGPL. This is, naturally, a large undertaking, and any help by anyone interested would

Hi guys, the SUPER codec by Erightsoft http://www.erightsoft.net/SUPER.html contains lots of GPL and LGPL code: mplayer, ffmpeg, x264, musepack, theora, which they admit and give credit for. Still, their product is proprietary, and they insist on it. I tried to get the source through their forum, but they of course won't give it: http://www.erightsoft.net/Supforum.html I'll forward

... > Getting the approval for a relicensing I think the contributions to > rsync have to be analyzed in detail to approach a reasonable number of > contributors. > > I experienced that finding a responsible person that is willing to > discuss such a case in an organization that contributed source code is > nearly impossible. > > Looking at the source code (my short

Hi, I am maintaining a port of rsync (https://github.com/perlundq/yajsync) which is GPL:ed of course. The main purpose of the project is to provide a Java API library for the rsync protocol. It would therefore be really nice to be able to use LGPL as the license. But in order to do so I would first have to get a list of all the individual contributors to rsync and then be able to contact them

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

My company recently started using a R library from RCRAN that is licensed under the LGPL Version 2 or greater per the DESCRIPTION file, but contains no copy of the LGPL notice, or any copyright notice. I've grown accustomed to paying attention to copyright and licensing as a Debian package maintainer, and sent the author of the package an email expressing my concern. The author believed that

Just FYI, MySQL stuff has been pulled from Asterisk since apparently now the client libraries are under GPL and not LGPL (and thus are incompatible with OpenH323). You may check out the MySQL code under "asterisk-addons", but you should not use both MySQL and OpenH323 (OpenSSL is also questionable) in the same Asterisk installation unless you downgrade your MySQL client libraries to a

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

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

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

On Feb 12, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Talin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Looks cool Talin. > > Personally it would be nice if it was checked into llvm.org, but is wxWidgets LGPL like license > an issue for llvm's repository? > > There should be no problem with the license. wxWidgets is indeed distributed

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Looks cool Talin. > > Personally it would be nice if it was checked into llvm.org, but is > wxWidgets LGPL like license > an issue for llvm's repository? > There should be no problem with the license. wxWidgets is indeed distributed under a modified version of the LGPL (with a special

Hi, please, can SOMEBODY help me to find the right characters to fit into the field \details{ ... ... License: \tab ???? \cr } of the description file for a new R-package? When building the package I always get: * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING Non-standard license specification: What license is it under? Last time I just used "GPL" and it worked, this time it