OpenBUGS is distributed under GPL2, so this seems not to apply. It is distributed as source and as binaries: the difficulty is that it is written in Object Pascal for which a compiler is not readily available.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > 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. But the C code is also under GPL2: see the comment on the web page I mentioned. Doing what Tobias is proposing (communicating with another program via files) is generally accepted as allowed under different licencing agreements. The whole brugs executable would be under GPL2. > (for private/internal use, there is no reason for going the dlopen() > routine...) Just an idea... > > Hin-Tak > -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel