Search Results

Search found 132 results on 6 pages for 'lgpl'.

Page 3/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • Choosing an open source license such that maximum value is added to a startup

    - by echo-flow
    There are many companies that produce open source software products, and many business models that these companies can use. I'm particularly interested in companies like 280 North, the company behind Objective-J and Cappucino frameworks. My understanding of this organization's business model is that they: worked to develop a tool which added significant value to developers, released the tool under an open source license, built a community around the tool (which was helped by the project's open source licensing), created interesting demos illustrating the project's value All of these things added value to the project, and the company that owned it. Finally, 280 North was sold to Motorola. My question has to do with the role of software licensing in this particular business model. 280 North licensed their software projects under the LGPL, which gave them some proprietary control over how the project could be used. I believe that the LGPL is what's known as a "weak copyleft" license, meaning that the project can be linked to, without the linking code also being licensed under the LGPL; but software derived directly from the project would need to be licensed under the LGPL. For web-oriented libraries in particular, weak copyleft, or non-copyleft licensing seems to be quite common; I can't think of a single example of a popular or well-known web-oriented library that is licensed under the GPL (or AGPL). The question then, is, how much value would a weak copyleft license like the LGPL add to a software venture like 280 North, versus a non-copyleft license, such as the BSD license or the Apache Software License? I'd really appreciate any insight anyone can offer into this, but I'd be most interested in answers that can cite other companies as case studies or examples.

    Read the article

  • Berkeley DB java edition, any LGPL or BSD alternatives in Java?

    - by Ali
    Hi All, I am dealing with a huge dataset consisting of key-value pairs. The queries are always in the form of range queries on the key space (keys are numbers) hence any persistent B-Tree like structure will handle the situation. I would like to use BDB-Java Edition but the product is closed source and my company doesn't want to buy BDB-JE License. I am wondering, would you please share your experience with any non-GPL java based key-value storage system. Thanks, -A

    Read the article

  • What are appropriate assembly attribute values for an open source (LGPL) project?

    - by michielvoo
    I have just started working on an open source project. The project is hosted on CodePlex and I work on it in my spare time. What would be appropriate values for the default assembly attributes (listed below)? [assembly: AssemblyCompany("")] [assembly: AssemblyCopyright("")] [assembly: AssemblyTrademark("")] It surprised me to see the AssemblyCompany and AssemblyCopyright attributes on several projects (on CodePlex as well as Google Code): xUnit.net [assembly: AssemblyCopyright("Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation")] [assembly: AssemblyCompany("Microsoft Corporation")] DotNetNuke: <Assembly: AssemblyCompany("DotNetNuke Corporation")> <Assembly: AssemblyCopyright("DotNetNuke is copyright 2002-2010 by DotNetNuke Corporation. All Rights Reserved.")> Moq: [assembly: AssemblyCompany("Clarius Consulting, Manas Technology Solutions, InSTEDD")]

    Read the article

  • Help me choose an Open-Source license

    - by Spartan-117A
    So I've done lots of open-source work. I have released many projects, most of which have fallen under GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensing. Now I have a new project (an implementation library), and I can't find a license that meets my needs (although I believe one may exist, hence this question). This is the list of things I'm looking for in the license. Appropriate credit given for ALL usage or derivative works. No warranty expressed or implied. The library may be freely used in ANY other open-source/free-software product (regardless of license, GPL, BSD, EPL, etc). The library may be used in closed-source/commercial products ONLY WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION. GPL - Useless to me, obviously, as it completely precludes any and all closed-source use, violating requirement (4). BSD/LGPL/MIT - Won't work, because they wouldn't require closed-source developers to get my permission, violating requirement (4). If it wasn't for that, BSD (FreeBSD in particular) would look like a good choice here. EPL/MPL - Won't work either, as the code couldn't be combined with GPL-code, therefore violating requirement (3). Also I'm pretty sure they allow commercial works without asking permission, so they don't meet (4) either. Dual-licensing is an option, but in that case, what combination would hold to all four requirements? Basically, I want BSD minus the commercial use, plus an option to use in commercial/closed-source as long as the developer has my written permission. EDIT: At the moment, thinking something like multiple-licensing under GPL/LGPL plus something else for commercial?

    Read the article

  • 7-Zip - A Free alternative to other compression utilities

    - by TATWORTH
    At http://www.7-zip.org/download.html, there is a free alternative other compression utilities. It handles a wide variety of formats including RAR!Here is the description from its home page:License 7-Zip is open source software. Most of the source code is under the GNU LGPL license. The unRAR code is under a mixed license: GNU LGPL + unRAR restrictions. Check license information here: 7-Zip license. You can use 7-Zip on any computer, including a computer in a commercial organization. You don't need to register or pay for 7-Zip. The main features of 7-Zip High compression ratio in 7z format with LZMA and LZMA2 compressionSupported formats: Packing / unpacking: 7z, XZ, BZIP2, GZIP, TAR, ZIP and WIMUnpacking only: ARJ, CAB, CHM, CPIO, CramFS, DEB, DMG, FAT, HFS, ISO, LZH, LZMA, MBR, MSI, NSIS, NTFS, RAR, RPM, SquashFS, UDF, VHD, WIM, XAR and Z. For ZIP and GZIP formats, 7-Zip provides a compression ratio that is 2-10 % better than the ratio provided by PKZip and WinZipStrong AES-256 encryption in 7z and ZIP formatsSelf-extracting capability for 7z formatIntegration with Windows ShellPowerful File ManagerPowerful command line versionPlugin for FAR ManagerLocalizations for 79 languages

    Read the article

  • Is there a Grid plugin for jQuery that has similiar capabilities to the Ext-JS Grid?

    - by Ehrann Mehdan
    One of the most appealing features of Ext-JS is the Grid control in my opinion. I was searching for something free that does something close and have set my hopes on jQuery. I haven't found a jQuery (or other LGPL compatible) Table / Grid plugin that allows to: Reorder columns by dragging Resize columns by dragging Add or Remove columns on the fly Have a default good looking UI (subjective, but Ext-JS look I think is a concensus) In addition to the rest most grid controls have (Sort, Paging etc) Is there a free (LGPL) jQuery plugin that does the above?

    Read the article

  • TotalPhase Aardvark driver's GPL license

    - by Philip
    I'm using an SPI host adapter for a project. The Aardvark from TotalPhase. And I did something crazy, I read that EULA license that everyone just clicks through. The driver installation license includes these bits: This driver installer package also includes a WIN32 driver that is entirely based on the libusb-win32 project (release 0.1.10.1). ... LICENSE: The software in this package is distributed under the following licenses: Driver: GNU General Public License (GPL) Library, Test Files: GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Now, my understanding of of the GPL is that it's sticky and viral. If you include software then the whole project has to be released under the GPL (if you distribute it, you can do whatever you want with in-house projects). If the driver was like the library, and was licensed under the LGPL, it could be used by my closed source proprietary project, as long as it's source and license was passed along with it. But it's not, it's pure GPL. If I include this driver in my project and distribute it, am I required to release my project under the GPL?

    Read the article

  • Is my concept in open source license correct?

    - by tester
    I would like to justify whether my concept in the open source license is correct, as you know that, misunderstanding the terms may lead to a serious law sue. Thank you. The main difference among the open source license is whether the license is copyleft. Copyleft license means allow the others to reproduce, modify and distribute the products but the released product is bound by the same licensing restriction. That means they have to use the same license for the modified version. Also, the copyleft license require all the released modified version to be free software. On the other hand, if any others create derived work incorporating non-copyleft licensed code, they can choose any license for the code. The serveral kinds of license and comparsion GPL is a restrictive license. Software requires to released as GPL license if that integrate or is modified from the other GPL license software . The library used in developing GPL license software are also restricted to GPL and LGPL , proprietary software are not allowed to employ (or complied with) in any part of the GPL application. LGPL is similar to GPL , but was more permissive with regarding allow the using of other non-GPL software. BSD is relatively simple license, it allow developer to do anything on the original source code . The license holder do not hold any legal responsibilities for their released product. Apache license is evolved from the BSD license. The legal terms are improved and are written by legal professionals in a more modern way. It covers comprehensive intellectual property ownership and liability issues. Also, are there any popular license beside these? Thank you

    Read the article

  • License problem embedding Mono?

    - by mydiscogr
    I'd like to embed Mono into an .exe file but the problem is the license, because a LGPL library can only be linked with LGPL code. However, I'd like to build a commercial app, so I ask if is possible to use a stub that launches a DLL version of the Mono runtime and executes my app. Or do you know a better way to do this? I need a cross-platform framework and Mono seems good, but there are some problem to pack it in one file, so you know a "free" way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

    - by DavidJFelix
    I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

    Read the article

  • Rewrote GNU GPL v2 code in another language: can I change a license?

    - by Anton Gogolev
    I rewrote some parts of Mercurial (which is licensed under GNU GPL v2) in C#. Naturally, I looked a lot into original Python code and some parts are direct translations from Python to C#. Is is possible have "my code" licensed under different terms or to even make a part of a closed-source commercial application? If not, can I re-license "my-code" under LGPL, open-source it and then use this open-sourced C# library in my closed-source commercial application?

    Read the article

  • What's the canonical way to acknowledge many FOSS sources in a single project?

    - by boost
    I have a project which uses a large number of LGPL, Artistic and other open-source licensed libraries. What's the canonical (i.e. the "standard") way of acknowledging multiple sources in a single project download? Also, some of the sources I've used are from sites where using the code is okay, but publishing the source isn't. What's the usual manner of attribution in that case, and the usual manner of making the source available in an open-source project?

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to acknowledge many FOSS sources in a single project?

    - by boost
    I have a project which uses a large number of LGPL, Artistic and other open-source licensed libraries. What's the canonical (i.e. the "standard") way of acknowledging multiple sources in a single project download? Also, some of the sources I've used are from sites where using the code is okay, but publishing the source isn't. What's the usual manner of attribution in that case, and the usual manner of making the source available in an open-source project?

    Read the article

  • XPath execution utility

    - by TATWORTH
    I have written an XPath test utility at http://commonxpath.codeplex.com/releases/view/96687This is a WPF application that allows you to enter some test XML and and an XPath expression. When writing such expressions it is important to get the XPath expression correct before embedding it into a program.The program is available as source under LGPL so you can run it both on your office and home PCs. There is a link to help on XPATH syntax.

    Read the article

  • How do I move a linked file on Unix?

    - by r3mbol
    I have a bunch of files in one directory and links to each one of those files in another directory. So ls -l looks something like this: lrwxrwxrwx 1 rembol rembol 89 Jan 25 10:00 copyright.txt -> /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy/data/core/copyright.txt lrwxrwxrwx 1 rembol rembol 92 Jan 25 10:00 jar-versions.xml -> /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy/data/core/jar-versions.xml lrwxrwxrwx 1 rembol rembol 85 Jan 25 10:00 lgpl.html -> /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy/data/core/lgpl.html lrwxrwxrwx 1 rembol rembol 79 Jan 25 10:00 lib -> /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy/data/core/lib lrwxrwxrwx 1 rembol rembol 87 Jan 25 10:00 readme.html -> /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy/data/core/readme.html drwxr-xr-x 3 rembol rembol 4096 Jan 25 10:00 server drwxr-xr-x 2 rembol rembol 4096 Jan 25 10:00 startup Now I want to move those linked files from /home/rembol/solr/target/deploy to /home/rembol/output/. If I do that my simply calling mv, links will break. I don't want to re-link each file separately, cause there are hundreds of them (they are generated automatically). Is there some clever way to move linked files, rather than writing a script that unlinks, moves and relinks recursively for each file in each subdirectory?

    Read the article

  • Keeping third-party libraries under a Mercurial project: Sub-repos or not?

    - by fraktal
    Hello, We are developing a closed-source project, versionned with Mercurial. We are using two libraries in our project : One of those libraries is being developed by a third-party. They are using git, and we usually just pull from their repo once in a week to get the latest changes. The other library is being developed by ourselves, and is under active development. It must live in its own public mercurial repository, as it is licensed under LGPL. (It's a fork of a third-party LGPL component, ported to our platform) So my question is: How should I organize the source to ensure that: A developer from our team should be able to get all the source (main project + libraries) with a single "clone" command We should be able to pull easily the latest changes from the libraries, even though one of them is managed by git Should we use mercurial sub-repos functionnality, with hg-git to access to the library under git? Is it well supported by TortoiseHg and BitBucket? (pros: easy to pull library changes / cons: does it works well?) Or should we keep only snapshots of the libraries under our project? (thus, when there are new upstream changes in the libraries, we pull them to a separate place, and then copy the whole source to our project? (pros: will work / cons: pain in the ass, especially for the library that is being developed by ourselves, which is subject to a lot of daily changes)

    Read the article

  • Alien deletes .deb when converting from .rpm

    - by Andre
    I'm trying to convert .rpm to .deb using alien. sudo alien -k libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Alien says that: libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.deb generated But when I check the folder - there is just original .rpm and no .deb. Also - I can see that for a split second there is a .deb file in a folder. so it looks like alien create .deb and deletes it right away. I suspect that it's maybe because I run 64 bit os and package is 32? Can somebody explain why alien deletes .deb automatically? Verbose output: LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R date -R chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 libtetra_1.0.0-3_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Very Verbose output LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm libtetra LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 1.0.0 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 2 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm i386 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm - First RPM Package LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm GPL and LGPL (Version2) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Name : libtetra Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.0.0 Vendor: Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd. Release : 2 Build Date: Tue 27 Apr 2010 05:16:40 AM EDT Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: libtetra-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Size : 31808 License: GPL and LGPL (Version2) Signature : (none) URL : http://panasonic.net/pcc/support/fax/world.htm Summary : Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. Description : This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm /usr/lib/libtetra.so /usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 63 blocks chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 dh_testdir dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_clean -k -d dh_clean: No packages to build. dh_installdirs dh_installdocs dh_installchangelogs find . -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 -not -name debian -print0 | \ xargs -0 -r -i cp -a {} debian/ dh_compress dh_makeshlibs dh_installdeb dh_shlibdeps dh_gencontrol dh_md5sums dh_builddeb libtetra_1.0.0-2_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0

    Read the article

  • Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

    - by optician
    There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (javascript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then re implemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then re-implementing it separate from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well?

    Read the article

  • Alien deletes .deb when converting from .rpm

    - by Stann
    I'm trying to convert .rpm to .deb using alien. sudo alien -k libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Alien says that: libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.deb generated But when I check the folder - there is just original .rpm and no .deb. Also - I can see that for a split second there is a .deb file in a folder. so it looks like alien create .deb and deletes it right away. I suspect that it's maybe because I run 64 bit os and package is 32? Can somebody explain why alien deletes .deb automatically? Verbose output: LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R date -R chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 libtetra_1.0.0-3_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Very Verbose output LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm libtetra LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 1.0.0 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 2 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm i386 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm - First RPM Package LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm GPL and LGPL (Version2) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Name : libtetra Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.0.0 Vendor: Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd. Release : 2 Build Date: Tue 27 Apr 2010 05:16:40 AM EDT Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: libtetra-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Size : 31808 License: GPL and LGPL (Version2) Signature : (none) URL : http://panasonic.net/pcc/support/fax/world.htm Summary : Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. Description : This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm /usr/lib/libtetra.so /usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 63 blocks chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 dh_testdir dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_clean -k -d dh_clean: No packages to build. dh_installdirs dh_installdocs dh_installchangelogs find . -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 -not -name debian -print0 | \ xargs -0 -r -i cp -a {} debian/ dh_compress dh_makeshlibs dh_installdeb dh_shlibdeps dh_gencontrol dh_md5sums dh_builddeb libtetra_1.0.0-2_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Resolution Oh well. It looks like it's perhaps a bug? or I don't know. I simply installed 32-bit version of Ubuntu in VirtualBox and converted package there. For some reason I couldn't convert 32-bit package in 64 OS. and that is that. If someone ever finds the reason ffor this behavior - plz. post somewhere in comments. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can I use a project code which has New BSD license but uses a GPL license library?

    - by Alok Kulkarni
    I want to use the ICSOpenVpn project source code in my commercial application. If we see the ICSOpenVpn project, it states that its license is New BSD but the libopenvpn.so library it uses is under GNU GPLv2 license. As per FAQ for version 2 of GNU GPL "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?" The answer says: "Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library." Also, how could ICSOpenVpn change the license to New BSD?

    Read the article

  • Most appropriate OSS license for infrastructure code

    - by Richard Szalay
    I'm looking into potentially releasing some infrastructure code (related to automated builds and deployments) as OSS and I'm curious about how the various OSS licenses effect it. Specifically, LGPL prevents the code itself (part/whole) being modified into a commercial product (which is what I'm after), but allows it to be "linked to" in the creation of commercial products (also ok). How does the "linked to" clause relate to infrastructure code, which is not deployed with the product itself? Would the application still be required to provide "appropriate legal notices" (which I'm not fussed over)? Would I be better off looking at the Eclipse Public License?

    Read the article

  • Relicense BSD 2/3-clause code to GPL

    - by Brecht Machiels
    Suppose I release some source code under the new BSD license. Is it allowed for someone else to take this code, make modifications to it and distribute it under the terms of the GPL? From Wikipedia: Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the current 2-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. I'm assuming this implies that one can relicense new-BSD licensed code to GPL?

    Read the article

  • Habanero

    - by csharp-source.net
    An Enterprise Application Framework for .Net that is ideally suited for developing applications in an agile manner. The framework is used for producing an application from the data layer through to the front-end. Free open source under the LGPL license, it includes ORM, code generation and runtime UI generation to create one application for the desktop & web. Features: * ORM: Map database tables to objects in code * Persist property values to and from the database * Define all mapping in a single XML file * Switch between database vendors with one setting * Support for MySQL, MS Sql Server, MS Access, Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Firebird * FireStarter GUI class definitions xml manager * Generate user interfaces and map properties to controls * Develop for both desktop (with Windows Forms) and web (with Gizmox' Visual WebGUI) * Generate new projects and code files * Generate UI forms from templates * Reverse engineer class definitions from existing databases * Support variable data sources, including an in-memory database. Ships with Firestarter a free database reverse engineering, Domain Modelling and Code Generator.

    Read the article

  • XHTML fix solution republished

    - by TATWORTH
    As a post VS2010 SP1 installation activity, I am recompiling all my open source projects. The first is XHTMLFIX at http://xhtmlfix.codeplex.com/ This LGPL project has simple fixes to ASP.NET 2.0/4.0 to achieve XHTML compliance as measured by the W3C tests at http://validator.w3.org/ The XHTML project shows as untrue the commonly held belief that MVP or MVC are necessary for producing XHTML compliant web pages. Incidentally the other supposed advantage of MVP and MVC over web forms of easier testing is also very dubious as web forms can be tested by systems such as Selenium or WaTiN. I have used NUnitASP (alas sadly discontinued) with web forms and found it be more effective than unit testing MVP. Now if you prefer the MVP and / or MVC approach over Web forms then fine, that is your preferance. Now if you can find an example where ASP.NET 4.0 Web forms properly written do not produce XHTML compliant markup, I would be glad of your example and will look at ways of modifying the markup to be XHTML compliant.

    Read the article

  • License for library developed with commercial program

    - by Overv
    I'm developing a commercial application that largely depends on the functionality of a library that will be developed with it. I'd like to open-source this library, because it offers functionality that is not found elsewhere and can be useful in other applications. However, I will also use it in my own commercial application. I don't want to publish the source of the main application, but it is definitely not a derived work (think of calculator app using GPL licensed library to calculate sine). And if someone else commercially uses the library, I want to require them to publish any changes made. Is the GPL license suitable for this or is LGPL perhaps what I need?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >