From pdalgd at gmail.com  Fri May  3 20:29:26 2013
From: pdalgd at gmail.com (peter dalgaard)
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 20:29:26 +0200
Subject: [Rd] Licence change
In-Reply-To: <5183E8DB.7040206@gmail.com>
References: <5183CAEC.8080208@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
	<303921F7-3702-46AA-922A-8F773F9002D8@r-project.org>
	<5183D85D.2000103@jrc.ec.europa.eu> <5183E8DB.7040206@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DC5D928A-BF65-41EF-A043-52E040B65041@gmail.com>


On May 3, 2013, at 18:42 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:

>> 
>> " one practical problem with requiring GPL >=3 is that it is not GPL-2
>> compatible"
> 
> It may mean that one of your users won't be able to use the package, for example if something else that they need requires GPL-2 licensing.

Actually, with the GPL licenses, usage is not a problem, but distribution can be. 

These legalities are a bit inane, and I try to forget about them as far as possible, but I think trouble kicks in if someone wants to distribute a work that derives from both GPL-2 and GPL-3 codes.  What "derived" means is yet another inane discussion... 

-- 
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk  Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com



[Rd] Licence change
peter dalgaard