-
This means that our project might be subject to the requirements of the GPLv3 license, which could affect our project's licensing and availability.
Please be aware of the potential risks and limita…
-
I'm not quite sure whom to contact on this matter. As far I understand, in case a company uses modified GPLv3 code, but doesn't share the sources, only the copyright holder of the software can request…
-
Is there a reason why this project is licensed as GPLv3, whereas https://github.com/fog/fog is MIT?
-
Hi
I found clink while working on a commercial application (that will be distributed) and seeing it is GPL v3, I understand that I am then obliged to make the source of our commercial program availab…
-
GnuTLS is not well designed, and has many flaws. mbedTLS is much nicer, and is available under a GPLv3 compatible license (Apache 2).
See [GnuTLS considered harmful] and [GnuTLS: Big internal bugs…
-
```
┌ lensfun git ........................................ [Recently updated]
0001-CMake-exclude-mingw-w64-from-some-msvc-exclusive-thi.patch
Patch could not be applied with `git am`. Continuing …
-
The project has no licensing. Ideally, this needs to be a loyalty free license to easily allow the use of the program in other snaps.
However, this isn't possible right now, given that the Rust cod…
-
### Description
The license expression of 'GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+' is incorrect.
### How To Reproduce
`>>> from packagedcode.licensing import get_normalized_expression`
`>>> get_normalized_expressi…
-
As title said, it is forbidden to publish a binary without the source file related to it.
The latest binary on GoolePlayStore ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.sm…
-
I think the license regexes needs some adjustment for a corner case. In Fedora, we have a package pending review (sip6) that has this as a license tag:
License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and (GPLv2+ with ex…