[R] licensing of R packages

[Duncan Murdoch]

Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> 2008/11/14 Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca>:
>
>   
>>> Another question is if that "strict" interpretation of the GPL could
>>>       

...

Actually Carlos asked that question, not me.

Duncan Murdoch
>>> be actually enforced, of course. Coming back to the GSL example, it
>>> seems a more flagrant violation of the license is already happening:
>>> http://www.numerit.com/gsl.htm (apparently the publisher of that
>>> product thinks that linking to a GPL dll doesn't impose any obligation
>>> to him, but the usual view of the FSF is quite the opposite; I just
>>> found that page by chance, I don't know anything else about that
>>> particular case).
>>>       
>
>  A "strict" interpretation of the GPL does not stop numerit from doing
> what they do. They do not distribute the GSL in any form. They tell
> you to go get the GSL dll from somewhere.
>
>  This misconception of the license terms comes about because of the
> use of the word 'use'. If I distribute a short C program that has a
> call in it to a function that has the same name as something in the
> GSL, does my C program use the GSL? No. Maybe it _mentions_ the GSL,
> but the GPL has no problems with that. I'm distributing my C program,
> and not the GPL-covered code, so I can license it how I like.
>
>  I can't find any rage from the FSF about what Numerit are doing, so I
> assume they're not considering it a violation.
>
> Barry
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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.
>