From ifellows at ucsd.edu  Wed Oct 22 23:43:42 2008
From: ifellows at ucsd.edu (Ian Fellows)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:43:42 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Possible GPL Violation
In-Reply-To: <d8ad40b50810221417j617b6e0lf62fec1308156d06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505574996E4F48D7861E71D46BAA8A71@gpbdmx>

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.

Ian

IANAL either, and I haven't read any contract law books. So please let me
know where I'm going astray (as I go astray often).




-----Original Message-----
From: b.rowlingson at googlemail.com [mailto:b.rowlingson at googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Barry Rowlingson
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:18 PM
To: Ian Fellows
Cc: r-devel at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Possible GPL Violation

> It seems unlikely that the functionality of this program can be separated
> from the R-packages upon which it relies, thus making them one work
subject
> to GPL. Does anyone have any experience with this software/company? Any
> thoughts?

 They're not distributing R itself:

 "You must have R on your computer to use these programs.  R is
freeware and complete instructions for obtaining and installing it are
contained in ZumaStat."

 - and there's no reason why you can't distribute your own R functions
under any license you want.

 So, not a GPL violation in my opinion. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer,
although I read some of my ex-girlfriend's contract law books...

Barry



[Rd] Possible GPL Violation
Ian Fellows