Hi,
> I opened an issue in https://github.com/dermesser/leveldb-rs/issues/26.
> The auther confirmed the original and gave some explanation about the
> different license.
In general if something is ported to anther language it keeps the same license.
It this case both licenses are compatible wi
Hi Justin,
I opened an issue in https://github.com/dermesser/leveldb-rs/issues/26.
The auther confirmed the original and gave some explanation about the different
license.
Thanks,
He
On 2023/05/17 07:28:43 Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would need to do a review in more detail to find out wh
Hi,
I would need to do a review in more detail to find out what should be added to
LICENSE (and NOTICE) or if there are any other issues. I can see there further
3rd party software included in your source please than needs to bee mentioned
in LICENSE.
Re [1] it is under the MIT license but tha
Hi Justin,
I read your comments carefully and found that the only gap was in
./third_party/rust-sgx-sdk and I am going to fix it soon.
- I did not see any license problem with crypto/src/lib.rs or its relation with
https://github.com/skalenetwork/sgxwallet/blob/develop/LevelDB.cpp.
- The GPL
HI,
Based on this it seems “Apache 2.0 with LLVM exception” is OK, it’s just nt
been added to the category A list yet. [1]
Kind Regards,
Justin
1.https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-494
Hi,
A search for “General Public License” shows up in these files:
./third_party/wamr.patch
./third_party/rust-sgx-sdk/licenses/LICENSE-tlibc.txt
./third_party/rust-sgx-sdk/licenses/LICENSE-common-inc.txt
./third_party/rust-sgx-sdk/sgx_backtrace/sgx_backtrace_sys/libbacktrace/ltmain.sh
./third_par
Hi Justin,
Thanks for your comments.
Could you please point out which GPL licensed software is included in the
release? We have already removed GPL licensed software that we think is GPL.
Thanks,
He
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 1:04 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A quick glance at this release s
Hi,
A quick glance at this release shows it still includes GPL licensed software.
Anything with that's GPL licensed can't be included in a ASF software release
or be a non optional dependancy. What licensing issues were corrected in this
release from the previous one?
Kind Regards,
Justin
P.S
Hi all,
I am pleased to be calling this vote for the release of
Apache Teaclave (incubating) 0.5.1 (release candidate 1).
The Apache Teaclave (incubating) community has voted and approved the
release. The result thread is
https://lists.apache.org/thread/knnbbjg8h5y4j3tnochjcz48dbtmmqvs
The rel
