R help - Aug 2010 - Is R GPL or LGPL (or can I write a commercial front end to R)?

Note I'm not asking for any legal advice here obviously, simply what the
intention of the R foundation is with regard to allowing commercial connection
to R.

I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like this
may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great
resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle.



In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can
write R packages that include functions implemented in C (and hence are provided
in native libraries linked to R.dll) and distribute them under licenses not
compatible with GPL. This was achieved by making the relevant header files
available under the LGPL. This was an explicit change that was made in February
2001, and the intention was to allow for DLLs that require the API header files
for compilation and are linked against R.dll to not be "infected" with
the GPL.

However the Rembedded.h header file isn't included in the list in the
doc\COPYRIGHTS file, and the copyright statement in the Rembedded.h header file
lists the GPL and not the LGPL as the relevant license.  So it doesn't look
like it was the intention to allow that I be able to use the R invocation API to
launch R and embed it in a product (such as a new GUI, or other such
integration) and ship that product under a license not compatible with GPL. Is
this correct? Or is it the intention that I be able to write a commercial
front-end of some kind for R?



My understanding of LGPL is that ALL of the source files that go into R.dll (and
indeed all libraries that R.dll itself linked to, apart from those covered by
the GPL system library exception) would need to be released under LGPL in order
to allow me to link to R.dll and not have my program subject to GPL. If that
weren't the situation then I could take a library covered by GPL, write a
different interface to it, put LGPL on those headers compile up a new DLL and
I've then got LGPL access to a library previously released under GPL, which
can't be the intention, otherwise LGPL would drive a coach and horses
through GPL. This would apply to native libraries (dlls) providing functions in
addon packages too, and so hence I'm not sure I necessarily understand how
simply putting LGPL on the header files is sufficient to achieve the intention.



There is provision in the GPL license (it's mentioned in the FAQ) for
providing for linking to a GPL library through one specific interface by
providing specific exception text in the copyright header in all of the files
that make up the library. That would only be possible if the copyright holders
of all relevant GPL code agreed to that, as that would be an extra grant to the
license. So if R linked to any third party GPL code, this wouldn't be
possible I don't think.

So I guess the question here is what the intention is of the R foundation with
respect to the limitations or freedoms that they are intending to allow. After
all, as the copyright owners they aren't going to sue if a use falls within
their intention, even if on a strict interpretation of the license such use
wouldn't be allowed.



So it seems to be the intention that I can write a DLL to provide R functions in
an add on package, which requires linkage to R.dll. Not convinced that the
license it set up right to cover that, but that appears to be the intention.
Question is whether at the other end, at the invocation API end, whether it is
the intention to be able to use the invocation API and link to R.dll without my
program being subjected to GPL.



Note that I'm not talking here about anything to do with code written in the
language of R. This is purely concerned with treating R as a library with an
interface and wanting to link to that interface and whether the intention or the
actuality of the license allow that.



Thanks!




	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Tom Quarendon wrote:
> Note I'm not asking for any legal advice here obviously, simply what
the intention of the R foundation is with regard to allowing commercial
connection to R.
>   
I can't speak for the R Foundation, but I can say that its intentions 
aren't all you have to consider.  R has many copyright owners.  You need 
to get permission from all of them if you want a special license, so the 
easiest thing is to stay with a GPL v2 compatible license.  If you don't 
want to do that, then you could go ahead with some other license and see 
what happens, but it might not be until your project becomes popular 
that someone decides to take action.  So in the latter case I'd get a 
legal opinion, not a mailing list opinion, before I invested a lot of 
time or money.

Duncan Murdoch
> I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like
this may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great
resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle.
>
>
>
> In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you
can write R packages that include functions implemented in C (and hence are
provided in native libraries linked to R.dll) and distribute them under licenses
not compatible with GPL. This was achieved by making the relevant header files
available under the LGPL. This was an explicit change that was made in February
2001, and the intention was to allow for DLLs that require the API header files
for compilation and are linked against R.dll to not be "infected" with
the GPL.
>
> However the Rembedded.h header file isn't included in the list in the
doc\COPYRIGHTS file, and the copyright statement in the Rembedded.h header file
lists the GPL and not the LGPL as the relevant license.  So it doesn't look
like it was the intention to allow that I be able to use the R invocation API to
launch R and embed it in a product (such as a new GUI, or other such
integration) and ship that product under a license not compatible with GPL. Is
this correct? Or is it the intention that I be able to write a commercial
front-end of some kind for R?
>
>
>
> My understanding of LGPL is that ALL of the source files that go into R.dll
(and indeed all libraries that R.dll itself linked to, apart from those covered
by the GPL system library exception) would need to be released under LGPL in
order to allow me to link to R.dll and not have my program subject to GPL. If
that weren't the situation then I could take a library covered by GPL, write
a different interface to it, put LGPL on those headers compile up a new DLL and
I've then got LGPL access to a library previously released under GPL, which
can't be the intention, otherwise LGPL would drive a coach and horses
through GPL. This would apply to native libraries (dlls) providing functions in
addon packages too, and so hence I'm not sure I necessarily understand how
simply putting LGPL on the header files is sufficient to achieve the intention.
>
>
>
> There is provision in the GPL license (it's mentioned in the FAQ) for
providing for linking to a GPL library through one specific interface by
providing specific exception text in the copyright header in all of the files
that make up the library. That would only be possible if the copyright holders
of all relevant GPL code agreed to that, as that would be an extra grant to the
license. So if R linked to any third party GPL code, this wouldn't be
possible I don't think.
>
> So I guess the question here is what the intention is of the R foundation
with respect to the limitations or freedoms that they are intending to allow.
After all, as the copyright owners they aren't going to sue if a use falls
within their intention, even if on a strict interpretation of the license such
use wouldn't be allowed.
>
>
>
> So it seems to be the intention that I can write a DLL to provide R
functions in an add on package, which requires linkage to R.dll. Not convinced
that the license it set up right to cover that, but that appears to be the
intention. Question is whether at the other end, at the invocation API end,
whether it is the intention to be able to use the invocation API and link to
R.dll without my program being subjected to GPL.
>
>
>
> Note that I'm not talking here about anything to do with code written
in the language of R. This is purely concerned with treating R as a library with
an interface and wanting to link to that interface and whether the intention or
the actuality of the license allow that.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>