G'day Duncan,
DM == Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
I agree with you on this. Probably I was to terse in my
writing and produced misunderstandings. I never intended to
say something about the rights that the user
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS On 5/22/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DS [...]
[...] Should perhaps better be formulated as:
My understanding was that in that moment a product was created
that would have to be
On 5/23/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS I think you are still missing the point. [...]
Quite possible, as I said early on IANAL. And these discussion really
starts to remind me too much of those that I
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...]
Sound like a perfect summary. :)
DS As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
DS your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a
On 5/22/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted:
My understanding was that in that moment a product was
created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
user was violating the GPL and lost the
On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...]
Sound like a perfect summary. :)
DS As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
DS your
About glmmADMB and GPL:
We were not very cautious when we put in the GPL statement.
What we wanted to say was that the use of glmmADMB is free, and
does not require a license for AD Model Builder.
Am I correct in interpreting this discussion so that all
we have to do is to remove the License:
G'day Brian,
BDR == Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BDR The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were
BDR required to release it under GPL
I should probably bow to your superior command of the English language
and trust that you can interpret Spencer's questions much
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use,
DS it governs distribution. Specifically,
As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago, but if I
remember correctly sometimes in the (early?)
On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use,
DS it governs distribution. Specifically,
As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time
G'day Deepayan,
DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use,
DS it governs distribution. Specifically,
As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss
Hi,
let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: I was responding to
the following paragraph in your reply to Spencer:
Berwin
A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd
code in S-PLUS. At some point, I got the impression that according to
the GPL the user would
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
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
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
On 5/19/06, Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
G'day Spencer,
SG == Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SG I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written
SG in R is arguably derived from R.
IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss in
which the interpretation of the various licences are
Joly
Subject: Re: [R] How can you buy R? [Broadcast]
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
The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were required to release
it under GPL (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not,
given that communication is between processes and the R code is
interpreted).
Rather, it is stated to be under GPL _but_ there is no source code
On 5/20/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Spencer,
SG == Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SG I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written
SG in R is arguably derived from R.
IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss
Hello,
ihmo you could buy quantian and find several third-party resellers
on dirk's page stated below.
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html
regards, christian
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I
Message -
From: Damien Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote:
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install
software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that
has been
These beliefs are very prevelant. The IT person for my group doesn't
beleieve in the concept of _free_ software and actually expects me to be
arrested some day for using R at work! All I can say is keep the faith.
On 5/19/06, J Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51,
On 5/19/06, J Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While there is no
charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL.
At one company I was working for, I had to run all the licenses of all
the software I had on my machine, through the legal department.
When they read GNU
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote:
Hi all,
HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a
licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R.
I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful.
Any ideas?
Would cheapbytes
@stat.math.ethz.ch
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install
software on my own. The entity has a policy
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
Thanks for this (and everyone else's!) responses! I really appreciate it.
You've all given me a lot of potential workarounds.
Damien
p.s., I suspect this will apply to Firefox, GIMP, OOo.org, and all the other
great OS tools I use on a daily basis.
On 5/19/06, Marc Schwartz (via MN) [EMAIL
Jarek wrote:
At one company I was working for, I had to run all the licenses of
all the software I had on my machine, through the legal department.
When they read GNU Public License (GPL) their only comment was: We
have no idea what that license means. Do not touch any software using
it.
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install
software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has
been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means).
:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
Hi all,
This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon
converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install
software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that
has
been purchased
[Damien Joly]
The entity has a policy of only using software that has been
purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). [...]
Any ideas?
[Rogerio Porto]
I think there isn't such a vendor.
A while ago, the Cygnus organisation has been created to address this
kind of need,
33 matches
Mail list logo
