On Apr 26, 2009, at 7:24 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote:
On 24-Apr-09 16:53:04, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding
ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
...inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension
into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I
Stavros Macrakis-2 wrote:
I do not know of any compiler licenses that place restrictions on what
you can do with code compiled under them, though I suppose they could
in principle. The restrictions typically come if you link to libraries
provided with the compiler.
These
On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
I said:
...The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is
not
obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF
cannot
enforce licenses given by the R Foundation
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Marc
: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks,
Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source
of the confusion: ParallelR
, this:
- Original Message -
From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks,
Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source
Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running
time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF
?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine.
[...]
Well, not quite. R.h RDefines.h and RInternals.h are LGPL, so as long as the
hooks go through
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding
ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
...However, if that commercial interpreter also had a 'compile' option,
and I compiled my progrtam using that, then equally I feel sure
that the compiled version would be subject to whatever restrictions
had been
Ian Fellows wrote:
Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running
time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF
?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine.
[...]
Well, not quite. R.h RDefines.h and RInternals.h are LGPL, so as long
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Ian Fellows ifell...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running
time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF
?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine.
[...]
Well, not quite. R.h
Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.com
Cc: Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com;
r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks,
Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce
; Patrick Shields; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD?
Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
derivative work
The FSF clearly promulgated the GPL with the intent of prohibiting the
bundling of GPL code with proprietary code. The way the GPL does this
is by putting conditions on distribution: if you distribute a
program based on a GPL program, the whole program must be licensed
under the GPL.
Clearly,
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is
not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation
and the copyright holders of any other packages redistributed by the
bundler. So it would be useful to
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:36:48 +0100,
Matthew Dowle (MD) wrote:
[...]
Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the
situation please ?
Just a short clarification (by no means intended to stop the thread):
as you can imagine we are discussing the matter internally
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Friedrich Leisch
friedrich.lei...@stat.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:36:48 +0100,
Matthew Dowle (MD) wrote:
[...]
Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the
situation please ?
Just a short clarification (by
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is
not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation...
bundler. So it would be
REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R
Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php
Have you also looked at:
http://nws-r.sourceforge.net/
The core of their
; Patrick Shields; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD?
Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
derivative work
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz
marc_schwa...@me.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions
is
not the FSF, but the copyright
: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Stavros Macrakis
Cc: Matthew Dowle; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz
marc_schwa...@me.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009
I said:
...The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not
obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot
enforce licenses given by the R Foundation
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote:
Underlying all of your
]
On Behalf Of Marc Schwartz
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Stavros Macrakis
Cc: Matthew Dowle; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz
marc_schwa
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding
ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 23-Apr-09 22:21:45, Ian Fellows wrote:
Assuming that the foundation does not want to deviate from the
FSF interpretation, there would still be value in clarifying its
position vis-à-vis how the license applies
Dear R-devel,
REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R
Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php
Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ?
Below is
I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just
wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found
in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase
derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are
R
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks,
Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source
of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR
is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like
any other package. The R
Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was
a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I
didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more
use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD
27 matches
Mail list logo
