It is my understanding that interpreted code is considered to be data and hence not able to be legally restricted in the same way that compiled code can be.
Patrick Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User") Gavin Simpson wrote: >On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:43 -0700, Spencer Graves wrote: > > >> I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of >>the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1): >> >> "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in >>whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part >>thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties >>under the terms of this License." >> >> After section 2.c, the GPL continues, "If identifiable sections of >>that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably >>considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this >>License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you >>distribute them as separate works." >> >> I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is >>arguably "derived from" R. Even if R code were not "derived from" R, I >>don't see how it could "reasonably be considered independent" of R. If >>my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer >>to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such >>claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL. >> >> > >{I cleared the recipients list out as this would have required moderator >intervention before getting through} > >IANAL [1] but AFAICS this is referring to the source for R itself, not >code written in the R language. Therefore, glmmADMB would not be >violating the GPL as it is not releasing the source for R (or parts >thereof) under a different or more restrictive licence. The authors of >glmmADMB are free to choose their own licensing terms for their >software, and they appear to have licenced the linking R code under the >GPL. However, they are not required to release their ADMB software under >the GPL or provide the source code, because it doesn't include GPL >software as an integral part. > >Again, IANAL and may have got this all wrong - happy to be corrected - >but that is my understanding... > >G > >[1] I Am Not A Lawyer > > > >> A "boundary" case is provided by the "glmmADMB" package. As I read >>the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone >>wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to >>give it to them. I just noticed that the version of "glmmADMB" that I >>downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a "src" subdirectory. This >>surprises me, given the comment on "http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml"; >>that "we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries". >>That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather, >>it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who >>distribute more general "AD Model Builder" software, could be required >>to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use. >>This should be fairly easy for them, because their "AD Model Builder" >>produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a "src" >>subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to >>distribute source code for the "AD Model Builder" itself, since that has >>an independent existence. >> >> If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know. >> >> Best Wishes, >> Spencer Graves >> >>Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote: >>> >>> >>>>While reading the various answers, I've remembered that >>>>the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting >>>>something, there are some packages in R that has a more >>>>restrictive licence than GPL. >>>> >>>>HTH, >>>> >>>>Rogerio. >>>> >>>> >>>Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have >>>"non-commercial" use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used >>>by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. >>> >>>So I suspect that this would be a non-issue. >>> >>>If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the >>>most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for "something", they >>>could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even >>>secure a little PR benefit for having done so. >>> >>>Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE? >>> >>>If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set >>>already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD. >>> >>>There is an awful lot of "commercial" software out there than can be >>>purchased online, "properly licensed" and downloaded, without the need >>>for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable >>>example. >>> >>>So: >>> >>> License: GPL >>> CD: Don't need one >>> Purchase: Donation to the R Foundation >>> Being able to use R: Priceless >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>HTH, >>> >>>Marc Schwartz >>> >>>______________________________________________ >>>R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >>>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >>>PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >>> >>> >>______________________________________________ >>R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >>PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >> >> ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
