From hin-tak.leung at cimr.cam.ac.uk  Tue Aug  7 02:10:36 2007
From: hin-tak.leung at cimr.cam.ac.uk (Hin-Tak Leung)
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:10:36 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Sligthly OT Re: Makefile for embedding OpenBUGS in R package
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708062029410.27542@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <W906017980119021186410641@nocme1bl6.telenet-ops.be>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0708062029410.27542@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <46B7B87C.1070808@cimr.cam.ac.uk>

Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Tobias Verbeke wrote:
<snipped>
>>> I presume.
>> Actually, these files appear to differ. The file I referred to
>> was the file ./Manuals/CBugs.html contained in the current OpenBUGS
>> release:
>>
>> http://mathstat.helsinki.fi/openbugs/OpenBUGS.zip
> 
> I am baffled by that C file: why not just link an even simpler stub 
> against brugs.so rather than play around with dlopen?
> 
> 
<snipped>

[I am not familiar with openbugs nor its licensing terms, but seeing as 
it is distributed as part-binary-only...]

I agree there is little technical reasons for dlopen() vs a simpler
stub, but there is occasionally licensing/legal reasons for doing so - 
GPL-licensed code dlopen()'ing proprietary-licensed binary-only DLL/so
is allowed, but a 'more intimate' linking of GPL-code with more 
restrictive code is sometimes troublesome in its licensing status.

(for private/internal use, there is no reason for going the dlopen() 
routine...) Just an idea...

Hin-Tak



[Rd] Sligthly OT Re: Makefile for embedding OpenBUGS in R package
Hin-Tak Leung