Does anyone have information on this, beyond the groklaw and Forbes items already mentioned? For example, are there good examples to follow, or are all the published case studies negative like those already been mentioned?
It seems to me that a commercial company could comply with the GPL without jeopardizing its ability to pay employees and stockholders by distributing its software in two, separately installed pieces: The first would provide the base, commercial, proprietary software under a commercial license. The second would include all components distributed under the GPL license, and would add capabilities to the first. I think something like this would benefit both the R Foundation and commercial software distributors. However, our legal department has yet to rule on this, and our management is not eager to move without the blessing of our corporate legal. Therefore, more solid information, published case studies, etc., would help.
Thanks,
spencer gravesBerton Gunter wrote:
My $.02 (sorry, couldn't resist).
This is but one skirmish in the whole vexatious battle on "intellectual property rights," which extends from software to many other venues, one of the most interesting of which is patents on human genes. An example I heard on the radio this morning was eHarmony.com patenting their algorithm for matchmaking, which, the commentator said, is based on a 431 item questionnaire (yet another reason to celebrate my long marriage; 431 questions -- yikes!) ! Needless to say, the potential fodder for editorializing both for and against this intrusion of "scientific method" into romance seems limitless. Do you think support vector machines or neural nets lurk in the background of their "algorithm"?
Anyway, the only predictions that I think it safe to make are: (1) We have only begun to fight -- and, yes, seeming samaritans (or is it samurai?) like R and GPL may yet have to engage; (2) advances in technology will only turn the heat up and pose yet more problems, as we move relentlessly from "thingy" inventions running our world to 'idea-y" inventions running it.
Matchmaking, anyone?
(Thanks for your indulgence).
Cheers, Bert
"Siddique, Amer" wrote:
SCO is grasping for straws. and is now gasping. vexatious lawsuits will only drive so far before puttering out. eventually the curtain gets pulled back on glorified attempts at racketeering. cheers.
Message: 76 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:08:12 -0500 From: Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [R] SCO & R To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thursday 27 May 2004 20:18, Greg Tarpinian wrote:
Actually, it was very recent. I pulled the electronic version of the
article from the Forbes website:
I would think twice before taking forbes articles too seriously. For instance, they seem to think that protecting intellectual property rights are all right when it's some big commercial company doing the protecting, but not when they are on the other side of the table. See this article from last year:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
--
Bert Gunter
Non-Clinical Biostatistics Genentech MS: 240B Phone: 650-467-7374
"The business of the statistician is to catalyze the scientific learning process."
-- George E.P. Box
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
