Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Tobias Verbeke wrote: <snipped> >>> I presume. >> Actually, these files appear to differ. The file I referred to >> was the file ./Manuals/CBugs.html contained in the current OpenBUGS >> release: >> >> http://mathstat.helsinki.fi/openbugs/OpenBUGS.zip > > I am baffled by that C file: why not just link an even simpler stub > against brugs.so rather than play around with dlopen? > > <snipped>
[I am not familiar with openbugs nor its licensing terms, but seeing as it is distributed as part-binary-only...] I agree there is little technical reasons for dlopen() vs a simpler stub, but there is occasionally licensing/legal reasons for doing so - GPL-licensed code dlopen()'ing proprietary-licensed binary-only DLL/so is allowed, but a 'more intimate' linking of GPL-code with more restrictive code is sometimes troublesome in its licensing status. (for private/internal use, there is no reason for going the dlopen() routine...) Just an idea... Hin-Tak ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel