G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:24:03 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, if you write a C/C++ program that makes use of GNU
extensions, you'd be in violation of the GPL if you were to
distribute it without GPLing it. Even the FSF doesn't believe
that:
: it states that R is
released under the GNU General Public License (GPL), without
specifying the version and linking to
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (GPLv3). However, the COPYING
file in the R directory corresponds to GPL2.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R
2008/11/14 Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another question is if that strict interpretation of the GPL could
be actually enforced, of course. Coming back to the GSL example, it
seems a more flagrant violation of the license is already happening:
http://www.numerit.com/gsl.htm (apparently
Barry Rowlingson wrote:
2008/11/14 Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another question is if that strict interpretation of the GPL could
...
Actually Carlos asked that question, not me.
Duncan Murdoch
be actually enforced, of course. Coming back to the GSL example, it
seems a
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 14/11/2008 4:42 AM, Carlos Ungil wrote:
I know the standard answer to this kind of question is get legal
advice from a lawyer, but I would like to hear the (hopefully
informed) opinion of other people.
I would say that, according to the FSF's
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Carlos Ungil wrote:
[...]
PS: By the way, I think FAQ 2.11 should be fixed: it states that R is
released under the GNU General Public License (GPL), without
specifying the version and linking to
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (GPLv3). However, the COPYING
file in the
,
Carlos
[*] this is not the case for all the recommended packages in the
distribution
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R-packages-tp20497391p20503264.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
R-help
G'day Bazza,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:07:11 +
Barry Rowlingson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A strict interpretation of the GPL does not stop numerit from doing
what they do. They do not distribute the GSL in any form. They tell
you to go get the GSL dll from somewhere.
This misconception
On 11/14/2008 11:01 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Bazza,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:07:11 +
Barry Rowlingson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A strict interpretation of the GPL does not stop numerit from doing
what they do. They do not distribute the GSL in any form. They tell
you to go get the
G'day Brian,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:47:46 + (GMT)
Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I think they are talking about cases where the GPL libraries are
compiled into the new product. Packages generally don't include
copies of anything
a court would decide, but
if you want to test the limits of the GPL license I would avoid challenging
a GNU project :-)
Cheers,
Carlos
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R-packages-tp20497391p20504401.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
IIRC, it was exactly
this clause, that credits have to be kept, that made the original BSD
license a GPL-incompatible Free Software License.
I think not. Rather it was the advertising clause that
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:16:35 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/14/2008 11:01 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
But I remember that a situation as you describe was hotly debated on
gnu.misc.discuss in the mid-90s; thus, I am talking obviously GPL 2.
Unfortunately
On 11/14/2008 12:07 PM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:16:35 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/14/2008 11:01 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
But I remember that a situation as you describe was hotly debated on
gnu.misc.discuss in the mid-90s;
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:36:15 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/14/2008 11:57 AM, Carlos Ungil wrote:
And the copyright owners have recourse to legal action if they
think there is a license violation. Again, I don't know what a
court would decide, but if
On 11/14/2008 1:14 PM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:36:15 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/14/2008 11:57 AM, Carlos Ungil wrote:
And the copyright owners have recourse to legal action if they
think there is a license violation. Again, I
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:37:20 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is so special about binaries?
First, with binaries it is (presumably) easier to define when one piece
of software is part of another.
Secondly, I presume that the software that started this thread
On 11/14/2008 11:57 AM, Carlos Ungil wrote:
Barry Rowlingson wrote:
This misconception of the license terms comes about because of the
use of the word 'use'. If I distribute a short C program that has a
call in it to a function that has the same name as something in the
GSL, does my C program
On 11/14/2008 2:15 PM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Duncan,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:37:20 -0500
Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is so special about binaries?
First, with binaries it is (presumably) easier to define when one piece
of software is part of another.
Secondly, I
://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R-packages-tp20497391p20509444.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R
20 matches
Mail list logo
