[R] How can you buy R?

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> G'day Deepayan,
> 
>>>>>> "DS" == Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> 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
>     DS> non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him
>     DS> by the GPL to the GPL-d part P.
> I don't think that I said this explicitly, but I can see how what I
> said can be interpreted in such a way.  The point is rather that at
> the moment component P and Q are linked (and I perhaps carelessly
> assumed that the user was doing this) a product is produced that
> should be completely under the GPL.  Obviously it is not.  Hence, the
> status of this linked product, and whether it can be used by anybody,
> is an open question.  And the answer is probably given by the
> copyright laws (and others?) of the country in the linking happens.  
> 
> 
>     DS> Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has
>     DS> lost his rights to "copy, modify and redistribute" P. He does
>     DS> NOT lose the rights to use P.
> 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 has with regards to P alone.  My comments
> were directed towards the linked product P+Q.  In particular, it is
> not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without
> violating copyright laws. 

The GPL is quite explicit on this:  as Deepayan said, it confers rights 
to copy, modify and redistribute P.  "Activities other than copying, 
distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are 
outside its scope."

This probably varies from country to country, but I think the assumption 
is that if you have a legally acquired copy of a program, you have a 
right to execute it as you like.  (The American DMCA and laws in other 
countries that implement the WIPO anti-circumvention rules limit you in 
specific ways, but they probably don't apply to the situation we're 
talking about.)

Now, I suppose you might argue that executing P+Q makes a copy of it in 
memory, but I think countries that have modernized their copyright laws 
recognize that this is something you have a right to do with a legally 
acquired copy.  You don't need the GPL to give you permission to do 
this.  That's certainly true in the US and Canada.  Your country may vary.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> 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 write to use your
>          package.
> 
> Should perhaps better be formulated as:
> 
>          My understanding was that in that moment a product was
>          created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
>          person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is
>          not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product.
> 
>     >> A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the
>     >> linux kernel is developed under the GPL.  [...]
>     DS> Linux is under GPL2, and not "GPL2 or later". [...]
> Oh, I wasn't aware that they did not use the typical(?) "or later"
> phrase.  Thanks for pointing this out and I note that we both agree
> that the linux kernel is definitely not under LGPL.
> 
>     DS> In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we
>     DS> were originally discussing: [...]
>     >> [...]  So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as "the
>     >> situation we were originally discussing".
> 
>     DS> I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of
>     DS> GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I
>     DS> was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your
>     DS> example.
> O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at
> Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail.  Now I am with you.
> 
> Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example
> discussed in gnu.misc.discuss.  From an abstract point of view the
> situations are the same.  You make someone else link a GPL product
> with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would
> have to be under the GPL but is not.  Hence, the derived work has a
> legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has
> to right to use it.  
> 
> The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people
> provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software
> from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the
> combined product.  
> 
> As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the
> situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and
> ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then use
> the combined product.
> 
> If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be
> acceptable either.  Except that in the first scenario there is a clear
> intend of circumventing the GPL.  But I was not sure whether such kind
> of intent makes any difference.  Thus, to avoid all these problems I
> decided to rather use the LGPL since that licence definitely seemed to
> allow both.  
> 
> Hope this clarifies some of my comments.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Berwin
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html