similar to: Implications of a Dependency on a GPLed Package

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

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

Howdy all... Reading with interest the thread(s) about REvolution, package licensing and the requirements of the GPL. First of all, let me introduce myself?. ?I joined REvolution Computing in February, after working for nearly 4 years for Intel as an open source strategist and before that for 6 years at Sun, where I established the first corporate open source programs office. ?I'm a Member of

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

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

Hi all, There have been posts in the past about R being made available for the iPhone and perhaps more logically now, on the iPad. My recollection is that the hurdle discussed in the past was primarily a lack of access to a CLI on the iPhone's variant of OSX, compelling the development of a GUI interface for R specifically for these devices. R itself, can be successfully compiled with the

libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns out to be "GPL". Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in the core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking the license of 'hash'. We'd therefore like to request that

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code > > freely combinable with other OSS. > > Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's >

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

I would appreciate some help with this. I read the GPL license and basically it says you can do whatever you want with the software (sell, modify) as long as you include the source code, the License and make any changes you make available in the same manner to all others. My questions is this: If I develop an external application (say a Call Center application or a GUI management application)

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid > > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked > > against any library under and

Hi Andrey, 2016-01-23 4:02 GMT+01:00 Andrey Gursky <andrey.gursky at e-mail.ua>: ... > If they don't want to bother with just discussing, why would they take a > big effort to claim? And your proposition for LGPL is not very > different in opposite to BSD or public domain. Yes, I agree. The risk of having a future lawsuit against my project would be pretty small if I

On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible

This post asks members of the R community, users and developers, to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License and R community policies more generally. The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original contributors by not disseminating misleading information about them. Indeed, for pragmatic reasons it effectively assumes that original authors have no rights regarding

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

Dear List, Some of you have been following the discussion of the GPL and its inclusion in the glmmADMB package we created for R users. I would like to provide a bit of background and include an email we received from Prof. Ripley so that everyone can be aware of how some might use the GPL to try to force access to proprietary software. I think this is interesting because many have voiced the

Dear R-users, I'm developing a package that heavily depends on another package released under the GPL-2 license. In addition, some few functions depends on other packages released under the following licences (as described in the corresponding pages of http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/): GPL GPL >=2. I want to release my package under a GPL >= 2 license, and after reading the

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >> The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is >> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered >> code. > > Fortunately judges know better than you.... > > If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that

Am Mittwoch, den 14.05.2008, 11:27 +0400 schrieb Anton Korobeynikov: > 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'. This is what the