similar to: Regarding licensing Terms

Dear All, I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer advice, but I'd like to get your feedback on a license question. My goal is to develop commercial software for image analysis of biomedical samples that may be used i.e. in academic institutions.

My humble 2 nonlegal cents: There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a lot more of these. All of these use essentially the same idea: - create the package under a standard GPL license - use the (command line) interface provided by the proprietary software to connect with it, eg by calls to

Dear All, thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite limited: I would most likely need to use a remote procedure call API, and build one side of the API as GPL. But this would make the coupling much slower and more

Dear Samba team, We have developed cross-platform multiprotocol intranet file searcher and it includes the module (SMB scanner for *nix) which uses libsmbclient to enumerate all files on smb shares ("uses" means including headers and linking with library). Other modules also use some external libraries, but all other libraries have LGPL license. We prefer to publish our

On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > >>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. >> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without

On 07/06/2011 05:13 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> The runtime library components state that they are licensed under >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php which does not >> contain a specific clause regarding binary redistribution. This seems to >> have been interpreted as not placing any restrictions

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,

Hoping someone can clear up a licencing question... My understanding is that R is licensed under the GPL, with some headers licensed under the LGPL (per COPYRIGHTS, so that R plugins don't have to be GPL - arguably incorrect, but besides the point). JRI states that it is licensed under the LGPL - but it links against R shared libraries (or so is my understanding - please correct me if I'm

My impression from reading http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#clp is that it's intended to be possible to compile programs using llvm and distribute the resulting binaries freely. This does not seem to be the case. I'm assuming no portion of LLVM is included in the compiled binaries, only the runtime library components, so that the compiled binaries are not derived from LLVM.

On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >>> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs >>> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files >>> as a

Thanks a lot Zen. Basically I'm trying to create a Speex decoder for Pocket PC. Actually I've already implemented an application for (talking phrasebook) Pocket PC using .NET CF. Now in that app I'm using XAudio MP3 decoder to play MP3 files from within my application. My doesn't have a player GUI, I'm just using the MP3 decoder programmatically from within my app. Now since

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,

Hello all, My apologies if this is a FAQ; I was not able to find the answer in any existing documentation. Furthermore, I know it''s not germane to Xen itself, but I''m hoping that someone else''s knowledge can save me a little bit of time. :-) In order to run Windows (XP, 2003, etc.) as a hardware-virtualized guest of Xen, is it necessary to purchase a retail-boxed

On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> >>>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed.

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

Hello, I am developing a game engine which will support Ogg Vorbis playback. If I were to use LibOgg and LibVorbis, would I then have to release my own product under BSD, thus requiring anyone who created games with it to do the same and reference Xiph.org in their game's credits? While I can definitely include a license file with my library, enforcing my own end-users to do the same would be

Hi, I wonder if I may freely use the default soundfiles that came with asterisk (fpm-world-mix, fpm-calm-river and fpm-sunshine) on production server? Are there any official sources of royalty free music? -- Mvh, Aurimas Skirgaila -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, Razvan > after that I use only the Windows interface to it (like any other > proprietary Windows software does) , GPL forbids me to do that. That's due to nature of the interface. Binary interface to codec make the proprietary application 'derived work'. > - I didn't find any commercial projects (not Operating Systems or > dual-licensed but simple

On 07/07/2011 02:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I, and many other reasonable people, consider the phrase: > > "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." > > ... to be talking about *copies of the software*. A binary is not a copy of the software, it is a lump of bits derived from it. >

Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I made some more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I discovered: - from FSF it seems that packaging together a GPL application and a commercial one it is a corner case of licensing. Here is what they say: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation