Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the
alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to
avoid them?
I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost
anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written
from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. I get several
emails a day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching". FUD,
vandalism, etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the
"Talk" page associated with each article, where the world is invited to
provide credible source(s).
Spencer Graves
On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
| The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in the
legal community that some companies avoid them.
Wittgenstein: 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'
This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is licensed
under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large corporations
from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.
If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you have the
modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?
Dirk
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
