similar to: About ParallelR and licensing of packages

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 the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum. mdowle > It appears that ParallelR

I intend to submit a newly developed package to CRAN (to be licensed under the GPL), which prompted me to re-read the GPL FAQ. The following section caught my attention: > If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? > > When the interpreter just interprets a language,

Anyone using or has access to ParallelR? I was looking at the page and found nothing really useful! http://www.revolution-computing.com/sitegenius/topic.php?id=195 I want to see if I can run R on a cluster of workstation, and use batch systems like Grid Engine or Xgrid: http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ http://ww.apple.com/acg/xgrid/ --Chi

I have recently started a new job at an NHS hospital in Scotland. Since I took up this post 6 months ago I have had an ongoing dispute with the IT secutiry dept. who refuse to install R on my computer. I previously worked in another branch of the NHS where R was widely used and yet there is nothing I can say which will persuade the IT dept here to even visit the website! With some help from our

Does anyone know any more than is in the following press release about REvolution Computing and their commercialization of R? http://www.intel.com/capital/news/releases/080122.htm "Intel Capital, the global investment arm of Intel Corporation, today announced that it has invested in the Series A financing of REvolution Computing, creator of parallel computing software for computational

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 interpretation of the GPL, any R code using GPL packages can be distributed legally only using GPL-compatible licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

I write about R every weekday at?http://blog.revolution-computing.com . In case you missed them, here are some articles from the month of April of particular interest to r-help subscribers. Thanks to everyone who has been following the blog and sending me messages and/or leaving comments -- it always brightens my day to hear from readers! http://tinyurl.com/cy7x9a?(from April 1) announced the new

Hi, I use R at home, and am interested in using it at my work company (which is in the Fortune 100). I began the request, and our legal team has given some gruff about the open source license. Not boring you with the details here, but I used some info on gnu.org as a rebuttal, and someone at the company replied that the generalities of GNU GPL may differ from R's specific GNU GPL license,

It is my understanding that R is licensed under the GPL with the exception of a few header files for the purposes of linking binary code with R under non-GPL licenses. However, the R-base package itself is licensed under the GPL, as are many (but not all) packages in CRAN. Furthermore, basically any R script will use functionality from R-base. As I understand it, the situation isn't

Has anyone heard whether Revolution Analytics is going to release this capability to the R community? http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110201005852/en/Revolution-Analytics-Unlocks-SAS-Data Dan Daniel Nordlund Bothell, WA USA

As an end-user, I wonder about Revolution R. Is the relationship between Revolution R and the R community at-large a positive one? Do the former contribute to the development efforts of the latter? Is there a competitive aspect? is their forum competitive with r-help? any other thoughts? (most of all, I simply hope that they help some of the many helpful experts on this forum, who have

Hello, I would like to see Xapian used more widely in the PHP community. The major obstacle is that binaries of the PHP extension cannot be distributed. I've been reading earlier discussions on this and wonder if there's now an option. My starting points were https://trac.xapian.org/wiki/FAQ/PHP%20Bindings%20Package and the discussion at https://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191. One comment

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 23:36 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't want to discourage you, but you are basically asking for > interpretation of legal documents... > If you really really need to know the answer to questions like these, > the best bet is to hire legal council. Chris is right. I would add that it sounds like you are already getting nonsense responses. However,

Hi list, I was testing out the "doSMP" package from REvolutionR in my regular R2.11.0 installation and I got the following error message.? Well, one obvious thing is that R2.11.0 was built using "i386-pc-mingw32" which is different from what revoIPC used.? I could just use REvolutionR, but all my R peripherals were set up to work with the regular R2.11.0.? So, I really want

Hi, I have developed one application using ggmap package.It is based on google map. I am a bit confused regarding its licensing terms.I want to know that can i use it with my other applications. Is it legal? -- With Regards, Narendra Pratap Principal Research Developer Hitech Robotic Systemz Ltd. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims are > not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void. The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is void then you have no permission at all to distribute any

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where > additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did > never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did

Hello dear R-help group (and David Smith from REvolution), I would like to perform parallel computing using R with Condor (hopefully using foreach or other recommended solutions, if available) for some "Embarrassingly parallel" problem. I will start by listing what I found so far, and then go on asking for help. So far I found the a manual by Xianhong Xie from Rnews_2005-2 (see page

Hi, I'm confused about my licensing obligation with respect to the Xapian SWIG bindings. I've got a python wrapper that sits above the standard Xapian Python/SWIG bindings, and I wasn't sure if the *intent* of the Xapian team is that my python wrapper - and any code that also uses my wrapper also falls under GPLv2. It seems unclear if the FSF's position on dynamic linking in

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Can you get the product without being bound by the restrictions? > That is, can one user purchase one and resell copies without the SLA > or with their own? Not with the trademark, that is mis-appropriation. If you want to complain about Red Hat doing this, then you'll want to complain about a number of distributors well before