On Sat, 20 May 2006, Patrick Burns wrote: > 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.
Yes: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL for a clearcut opinion from FSF. However, most R packages contain compiled code that is linked against R's headers and is dynamically linked into R, and that is a more contentious issue. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and especially http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins See also Q2.11 in the R FAQ, which says `The R Core Team does not provide legal advice under any circumstances' (including here). The onus is on those distributing packages to ensure that they meet the requirements of R's GPL. > 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 -- 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-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
