2008/10/22 Ian Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Perhaps my understanding of GPL is lacking, but isn't this the reason that > GPL is different for LGPL? Linking to functions is allowed in the lesser > license, but not in GPL. > > From the gpl faq: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that > mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible > licenses? > > When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The > interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software > license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use > the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any > way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to > anyone. > > However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to other > facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted program > is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these bindings. So > if these facilities are released under the GPL, the interpreted program that > uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native > Interface is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries that are > accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call > them. These libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the > interpreter is linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed > to link dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be > released in a GPL-compatible way. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding of this is that any function can be distributed under any > terms that you wish, so long as they don't use any GPL higher level > functions (i.e. ones not directly implemented by the language). What > constitutes higher level is a little bit fuzzy to me, but I suppose that the > package Stats might qualify.
I think the issue is with distributing the whole thing - R plus your code - and what license you have to use. I can't be stopped from releasing anything I write under whatever license I choose. So even if I write some C code that links into R or even patches R, I can release that C code on its own under any license I like. However I can't distribute that code *with R* and keep my code under a non-GPL license. I can distribute them separately though. Also, I've been trying to figure out what this Robust Statistics thing they are offering is exactly. It's not even for sale yet: "The ZumaStat robust statistics package that interfaces with R is offered separate from other ZumaStat programs. The robust statistics package is finished by I am waiting for SPSS to work out the bug described below (in red) before I release it." which I fail to parse properly... But it's possible that it doesn't contain much R code at all, and it's just data interchange between SPSS and robust statistics functions included in R. This wouldn't make the system a "single program". The law books were more interesting than the girlfriend... Barry ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
