From macrakis at alum.mit.edu  Fri Apr 24 18:53:04 2009
From: macrakis at alum.mit.edu (Stavros Macrakis)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:53:04 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.090424015414.Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk>
References: <384C84AE99C74D9898E4F04DE0E34F49@gpbdmx>
	<XFMail.090424015414.Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <8b356f880904240953l30d173c6jaf80df45809b2ce1@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding
<Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> ...However, if that commercial interpreter also had a 'compile' option,
> and I compiled my progrtam using that, then equally I feel sure
> that the compiled version would be subject to whatever restrictions
> had been placed on distirbution fo binaries so compiled. I think
> those things are clear enough.

I do not know of any compiler licenses that place restrictions on what
you can do with code compiled under them, though I suppose they could
in principle. The restrictions typically come if you link to libraries
provided with the compiler.

> ...inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension
> into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I think I could then
> be vulnerable, or they could, on the grounds that I/they had pinched
> the idea from the commercial product.

Unless you have a confidentiality agreement of some kind, or the idea
is covered by a patent, you can pinch any ideas you like from other
products.  Copyright law does not cover ideas.

> ...Or maybe the GPL doesn't inhibit you
> from using *ideas* and *features* of GPL software, provided you
> implement them yourself and in your own way?

The GPL does not and cannot restrict reimplementations of ideas and features.

            -s



[Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Stavros Macrakis