From b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk  Thu Oct 23 00:48:34 2008
From: b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk (Barry Rowlingson)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:48:34 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Possible GPL Violation
In-Reply-To: <505574996E4F48D7861E71D46BAA8A71@gpbdmx>
References: <d8ad40b50810221417j617b6e0lf62fec1308156d06@mail.gmail.com>
	<505574996E4F48D7861E71D46BAA8A71@gpbdmx>
Message-ID: <d8ad40b50810221548q1d2c3a18nf478dcef001b5b3c@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/22 Ian Fellows <ifellows at ucsd.edu>:
> Perhaps my understanding of GPL is lacking, but isn't this the reason that
> GPL is different for LGPL? Linking to functions is allowed in the lesser
> license, but not in GPL.
>
> From the gpl faq:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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, the answer is no. The
> interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
> license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use
> the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any
> way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to
> anyone.
>
>    However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to other
> facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted program
> is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these bindings. So
> if these facilities are released under the GPL, the interpreted program that
> uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native
> Interface is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries that are
> accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call
> them. These libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the
> interpreter is linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed
> to link dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be
> released in a GPL-compatible way.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding of this is that any function can be distributed under any
> terms that you wish, so long as they don't use any GPL higher level
> functions (i.e. ones not directly implemented by the language). What
> constitutes higher level is a little bit fuzzy to me, but I suppose that the
> package Stats might qualify.

 I think the issue is with distributing the whole thing - R plus your
code - and what license you have to use. I can't be stopped from
releasing anything I write under whatever license I choose. So even if
I write some C code that links into R or even patches R, I can release
that C code on its own under any license I like.

 However I can't distribute that code *with R* and keep my code under
a non-GPL license. I can distribute them separately though.

 Also, I've been trying to figure out what this Robust Statistics
thing they are offering is exactly. It's not even for sale yet:

"The ZumaStat robust statistics package that interfaces with R is
offered separate from other ZumaStat programs.  The robust statistics
package is finished by I am waiting for SPSS to work out the bug
described below (in red) before I release it."

 which I fail to parse properly... But it's possible that it doesn't
contain much R code at all, and it's just data interchange between
SPSS and robust statistics functions included in R. This wouldn't make
the system a "single program".

 The law books were more interesting than the girlfriend...

Barry



[Rd] Possible GPL Violation
Barry Rowlingson