From oliver at first.in-berlin.de  Wed Aug 31 17:08:48 2011
From: oliver at first.in-berlin.de (oliver)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:08:48 +0200
Subject: [Rd] Non-GPL C (or R) inside of a package
In-Reply-To: <CABDUZc-ML9bzu=zyHqptDEQehDQkMqpGZPRd-j=pnWvk+4ioog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDUZc-ML9bzu=zyHqptDEQehDQkMqpGZPRd-j=pnWvk+4ioog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110831150848.GA7790@siouxsie>

If you compile/link the code together,
and distribute the software, then the code must be GPL.

Seperate install makes sense. IMHO.
So then the user would put together the parts.
Not sure, but maybe the different parts also must be shipped seperated.


Ciao,
   Oliver


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:50:37PM -0500, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
> R-devel,
> 
> I am interested in creating a package that requires non-GPL'd (commercial) C
> code to work.  In essence it is a single .c file with no use of R headers
> (all .C callable functions).  For example's sake:
> 
>   1 #include <stdio.h>
>   2
>   3 void test (int *a) {
>   4   *a = 101;
>   5 }
> 
> The package isn't destined for CRAN, and I realize that this isn't R-legal,
> but looking for some expert advice from anyone else who may have encountered
> this previously.
> 
> The question is whether or not one can distribute code that has multiple
> licenses (.c or individual .R files), including some that are not
> GPL-compatible, as a tar.gz (or binary) file.  i.e., does the packaging
> process [R CMD ***] cause everything to become GPL, as we are using R itself
> to build the package?
> 
> I can of course provide the C libs in this case as a separate install, but
> that adds complexity to the overall build and install process.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey Ryan
> jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com
> 
> www.lemnica.com
> www.esotericR.com
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] Non-GPL C (or R) inside of a package
oliver