Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Duncan, DM == Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DM On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote: I agree with you on this. Probably I was to terse in my writing and produced misunderstandings. I never intended to say something about the rights that the user has with regards to P alone. My comments were directed towards the linked product P+Q. In particular, it is not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without violating copyright laws. DM The GPL is quite explicit on this: as Deepayan said, it DM confers rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. [..] Yes, so he did. But I refer above to copyright laws, not the GPL. It is not clear to me under which rules/licence/laws the combined product falls and whether you have the right to execute it. And in some places, including Australia, copyright laws are getting really strange and restrictive, so it seems. DM Now, I suppose you might argue that executing P+Q makes a copy DM of it in memory, [...] Yes, I read arguments along these lines on gnu.misc.disucss. Personally, I wouldn't use them because I know too little about these processes (and what happens under static linking, dynamic linking and so on) to make any statements on such issues. From following such discussion, I only got the impression that these points seem to be relevant in defining when (under copyright law) a derivative work is produced. DM but I think countries that have modernized their copyright DM laws recognize that this is something you have a right to do DM with a legally acquired copy. I doubt it, I don't think that the lawyers understand these technicalities either. ;-)) Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS On 5/22/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DS [...] [...] Should perhaps better be formulated as: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product. DS I think you are still missing the point. [...] Quite possible, as I said early on IANAL. And these discussion really starts to remind me too much of those that I read in gnu.misc.discuss. Since I never participated in them, I don't see why I should here. And that group is probably a better forum to discuss all these issues. If some of the guys who always tried to argue that they found a way to circumvent the GPL are still hanging around, I am sure they are happy if you come along and confirm that according to your understanding of the GPL eveything they are doing is o.k.. :) DS The act of creating a derivative work is NOT governed by the DS GPL, Yes, as a part of the GPL that I quoted earlier states. it is the (local?) copyright law which defines when a derivative work is created. The GPL just stipulates under which licence this derivative work has to be. DS so it cannot possibly by itself violate the GPL. Fair enough. There are probably several people in gnu.misc.discuss who would be happy to hear this. :) DS The question of violation only applies when the creator of DS this derivative work wishes to _distribute_ it. This is like DS me writing a book that no one else ever reads; it doesn't DS matter if I have plagiarized huge parts of it. This point is DS not as academic as you might think. Hey, I work in an academic environment, so it is hard to imagine that I would view any point as being too academic. :) DS It is well known that Google uses a customized version of DS Linux for their servers; however, they do not distribute this DS customized version, and hence are under no obligation to DS provide the changes (and they do not, in fact). This is NOT a DS violation of the GPL. I agree and would have never claimed anything different. You are stating the obvious here. [...] If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be acceptable either. Except that in the first scenario there is a clear intend of circumventing the GPL. [...] DS That's your choice, but the situations are not symmetric, and DS quite deliberately so. That's why I studied mathematics and not law. I readily accept that there is some logic in law, it is just that I never got it. For me, if I make someone else link a GPL product P with a non-GPL product Q, then this is the same, whether I was the provider of P or Q. DS The FSF's plan was not to produce a completely independent and DS fully functional 'GNU system' at once (which would be DS unrealistic), but rather produce replacements of UNIX tools DS one by one. It was entirely necessary to allow these new DS versions to operate within the older, proprietary system. Wasn't your argument above, in response to the scenario that I was describing, that it is not necessary to explicitly allow this because a user can never violate the GPL? As long as you operate on a proprietary system and not distributing anything, why would there all of a sudden be a problem? DS In fact, GCC was not the first piece of software released DS under the GPL, My guess is that the first piece of software released under the GPL was Emacs, but it is quite likely that I will be corrected on this point. DS and until then the only way to use GPL software was to compile DS them using a non-free compiler. I know, I have compiled a lot of GPL software with non GCC compilers; and I have been using GCC when it was still standing for GNU C Compiler. But thanks for the history lesson anyhow. :) Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/23/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS I think you are still missing the point. [...] Quite possible, as I said early on IANAL. And these discussion really starts to remind me too much of those that I read in gnu.misc.discuss. Since I never participated in them, I don't see why I should here. And that group is probably a better forum to discuss all these issues. If some of the guys who always tried to argue that they found a way to circumvent the GPL are still hanging around, I am sure they are happy if you come along and confirm that according to your understanding of the GPL eveything they are doing is o.k.. :) [...] DS The FSF's plan was not to produce a completely independent and DS fully functional 'GNU system' at once (which would be DS unrealistic), but rather produce replacements of UNIX tools DS one by one. It was entirely necessary to allow these new DS versions to operate within the older, proprietary system. Wasn't your argument above, in response to the scenario that I was describing, that it is not necessary to explicitly allow this because a user can never violate the GPL? As long as you operate on a proprietary system and not distributing anything, why would there all of a sudden be a problem? It's not necessary as long as you are only a user. It is necessary when you want to be more than a user and copy, modify and distribute. That's the difference between free software and ``Free software'' [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html In any case, I'm not interested in a technical discussion about the GPL either, I was only trying to respond to (what in my opinion was) some misinformation about the GPL. I have no interest in convincing you personally, and I wouldn't have bothered if this wasn't a public list. I think I have stated my point of view clearly enough, so I'm going to stop here. -Deepayan __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...] Sound like a perfect summary. :) DS As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), DS your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a DS non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him DS by the GPL to the GPL-d part P. I don't think that I said this explicitly, but I can see how what I said can be interpreted in such a way. The point is rather that at the moment component P and Q are linked (and I perhaps carelessly assumed that the user was doing this) a product is produced that should be completely under the GPL. Obviously it is not. Hence, the status of this linked product, and whether it can be used by anybody, is an open question. And the answer is probably given by the copyright laws (and others?) of the country in the linking happens. DS Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has DS lost his rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. He does DS NOT lose the rights to use P. I agree with you on this. Probably I was to terse in my writing and produced misunderstandings. I never intended to say something about the rights that the user has with regards to P alone. My comments were directed towards the linked product P+Q. In particular, it is not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without violating copyright laws. Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. Should perhaps better be formulated as: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product. A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the linux kernel is developed under the GPL. [...] DS Linux is under GPL2, and not GPL2 or later. [...] Oh, I wasn't aware that they did not use the typical(?) or later phrase. Thanks for pointing this out and I note that we both agree that the linux kernel is definitely not under LGPL. DS In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we DS were originally discussing: [...] [...] So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as the situation we were originally discussing. DS I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of DS GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I DS was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your DS example. O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail. Now I am with you. Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example discussed in gnu.misc.discuss. From an abstract point of view the situations are the same. You make someone else link a GPL product with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would have to be under the GPL but is not. Hence, the derived work has a legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has to right to use it. The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the combined product. As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then use the combined product. If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be acceptable either. Except that in the first scenario there is a clear intend of circumventing the GPL. But I was not sure whether such kind of intent makes any difference. Thus, to avoid all these problems I decided to rather use the LGPL since that licence definitely seemed to allow both. Hope this clarifies some of my comments. Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/22/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. Should perhaps better be formulated as: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product. I think you are still missing the point. The act of creating a derivative work is NOT governed by the GPL, so it cannot possibly by itself violate the GPL. The question of violation only applies when the creator of this derivative work wishes to _distribute_ it. This is like me writing a book that no one else ever reads; it doesn't matter if I have plagiarized huge parts of it. This point is not as academic as you might think. It is well known that Google uses a customized version of Linux for their servers; however, they do not distribute this customized version, and hence are under no obligation to provide the changes (and they do not, in fact). This is NOT a violation of the GPL. DS I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of DS GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I DS was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your DS example. O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail. Now I am with you. Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example discussed in gnu.misc.discuss. From an abstract point of view the situations are the same. You make someone else link a GPL product with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would have to be under the GPL but is not. Hence, the derived work has a legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has to right to use it. The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the combined product. As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then use the combined product. If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be acceptable either. Except that in the first scenario there is a clear intend of circumventing the GPL. But I was not sure whether such kind of intent makes any difference. Thus, to avoid all these problems I decided to rather use the LGPL since that licence definitely seemed to allow both. That's your choice, but the situations are not symmetric, and quite deliberately so. The FSF's plan was not to produce a completely independent and fully functional 'GNU system' at once (which would be unrealistic), but rather produce replacements of UNIX tools one by one. It was entirely necessary to allow these new versions to operate within the older, proprietary system. In fact, GCC was not the first piece of software released under the GPL, and until then the only way to use GPL software was to compile them using a non-free compiler. This is enabled by means of exceptions to the GPL, as described in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs (which I have already referred to once before). Deepayan __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote: G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...] Sound like a perfect summary. :) DS As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), DS your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a DS non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him DS by the GPL to the GPL-d part P. I don't think that I said this explicitly, but I can see how what I said can be interpreted in such a way. The point is rather that at the moment component P and Q are linked (and I perhaps carelessly assumed that the user was doing this) a product is produced that should be completely under the GPL. Obviously it is not. Hence, the status of this linked product, and whether it can be used by anybody, is an open question. And the answer is probably given by the copyright laws (and others?) of the country in the linking happens. DS Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has DS lost his rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. He does DS NOT lose the rights to use P. I agree with you on this. Probably I was to terse in my writing and produced misunderstandings. I never intended to say something about the rights that the user has with regards to P alone. My comments were directed towards the linked product P+Q. In particular, it is not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without violating copyright laws. The GPL is quite explicit on this: as Deepayan said, it confers rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. This probably varies from country to country, but I think the assumption is that if you have a legally acquired copy of a program, you have a right to execute it as you like. (The American DMCA and laws in other countries that implement the WIPO anti-circumvention rules limit you in specific ways, but they probably don't apply to the situation we're talking about.) Now, I suppose you might argue that executing P+Q makes a copy of it in memory, but I think countries that have modernized their copyright laws recognize that this is something you have a right to do with a legally acquired copy. You don't need the GPL to give you permission to do this. That's certainly true in the US and Canada. Your country may vary. Duncan Murdoch Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. Should perhaps better be formulated as: My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product. A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the linux kernel is developed under the GPL. [...] DS Linux is under GPL2, and not GPL2 or later. [...] Oh, I wasn't aware that they did not use the typical(?) or later phrase. Thanks for pointing this out and I note that we both agree that the linux kernel is definitely not under LGPL. DS In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we DS were originally discussing: [...] [...] So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as the situation we were originally discussing. DS I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of DS GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I DS was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your DS example. O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail. Now I am with you. Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example discussed in gnu.misc.discuss. From an abstract point of view the situations are the same. You make someone else link a GPL product with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would have to be under the GPL but is not. Hence, the derived work has a legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has to right to use it. The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the combined product. As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then
[R] How can you buy R?
About glmmADMB and GPL: We were not very cautious when we put in the GPL statement. What we wanted to say was that the use of glmmADMB is free, and does not require a license for AD Model Builder. Am I correct in interpreting this discussion so that all we have to do is to remove the License: GPL statement from the DESCRIPTION file (and everywhere else it may occur), and there will be no conflict between glmmADMB and the rules of the R community? We have temporarily withdrawn glmmADMB until this question has been settled. hans Brian Ripley wrote: The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were required to release it under GPL (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not, given that communication is between processes and the R code is interpreted). Rather, it is stated to be under GPL _but_ there is no source code offer for the executables (and the GPL FAQ says that for anonymous FTP it should be downloadable via the same site, and the principles apply equally to HTTP sites). As the executables are not for my normal OS and I would like to exercise my freedom to try the GPLed code, I have requested the sources from the package maintainer. __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Brian, BDR == Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BDR The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were BDR required to release it under GPL I should probably bow to your superior command of the English language and trust that you can interpret Spencer's questions much better than I, but I was addressing, amongst other things, the following comment: SG A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I SG read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. which to me seems to ask exactly about this issue. BDR (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not, BDR given that communication is between processes and the R code BDR is interpreted). So, it seems we agree. :) (Though for different reasons) BDR Rather, it is stated to be under GPL Indeed, and I noted so. Furthermore, I thought it was rather pointless to confirm that under the licence of the package as it is stated at the moment they would actually be required to provide the source code of the binaries. My apologies for not doing a thorough discussion of all possible scenarios. I just pointed out that if the developers of this package do not want to provide the source code for these binaries, they should probably state another licence for them in the DESCRIPTION file and, since the binaries are not loaded dynamically, they would not be obliged to release the source code; a statement that you seem to agree to. BDR [...] As the executables are not for my normal OS and I BDR would like to exercise my freedom to try the GPLed code, I BDR have requested the sources from the package maintainer. Good luck. :) BDR Once again, the GPL FAQ and its references, BDR http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, are a more informed BDR source than mailing lists. If you think you understand it, BDR try the exam at BDR http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi BDR (cheaper than testing in court). Well, if you read this material, you get the opinions of the FSF on these matters, other people might have other opinions/interpretations. If you read the material really careful, you will notice that there is one point, namely what exactly constitutes combining two parts into one program, for which even the FSF concedes that it is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. And it is exactly this point which often raises discussions about the GPL, e.g. (parts of) the current discussion. Luckily, the GPL is very well written and so far nobody with deep enough pockets was found who really wanted to have a definite answer to this question. Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, DS it governs distribution. Specifically, As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago, but if I remember correctly sometimes in the (early?) '90s the following case was discussed. A company made a binary module available for download and gave the instructions go to the FSF site (or a mirror), download version X.Y.Z of program U and compile it with these options, then link our module and start the program, now you can use these features of ours and are in business. (Remember, these were the days when most free software was only available in .tar.gz form, people were used to compile their own software and slackware was the dominant (only?) linux distribution, no .rpm or .deb files.) Note also that they did not distribute any GPL code, they said go and get it. As far as I remember, they were told by the FSF that they cannot do this and had to stop. And, IIRC, the argument was that whether they did the linking or let the end user do the linking was the same and, hence, the GPL was violated. But it is quite possible that the argument was based on other sections of the GPL. And, obviously, there must be some mechanism in the GPL that prohibits the above procedure, otherwise it would be very easy to circumvent the GPL. (This idea of circumventing the GPL was regularly floated on gnu.misc.discuss while I followed it.) Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, DS it governs distribution. Specifically, As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago, but if I remember correctly sometimes in the (early?) '90s the following case was discussed. A company made a binary module available for download and gave the instructions go to the FSF site (or a mirror), download version X.Y.Z of program U and compile it with these options, then link our module and start the program, now you can use these features of ours and are in business. (Remember, these were the days when most free software was only available in .tar.gz form, people were used to compile their own software and slackware was the dominant (only?) linux distribution, no .rpm or .deb files.) Note also that they did not distribute any GPL code, they said go and get it. As far as I remember, they were told by the FSF that they cannot do this and had to stop. And, IIRC, the argument was that whether they did the linking or let the end user do the linking was the same and, hence, the GPL was violated. I'll readily concede that my interpretation may be flawed, but this example doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. This binary module was clearly (in the opinion of the FSF) a derivative work of something that was GPL, and hence the company was violating the GPL by distributing the binary module under a license other than the GPL. Whether it was truly a derivative work (which would depend on how the 'linking' was done) may be in contention, but that's not the issue here. Also, as far as I can tell, your description applies to the situation with Nvidia's binary kernel drivers for the Linux kernel (which is GPL and not LGPL AFAIK), which is obviously tolerated, so there must have been some other nuances. In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we were originally discussing: there one wants to distribute a GPL-d module that possibly links into a proprietary system. As far as I can tell, the example you quoted above has no relevance in this situation. -Deepayan But it is quite possible that the argument was based on other sections of the GPL. And, obviously, there must be some mechanism in the GPL that prohibits the above procedure, otherwise it would be very easy to circumvent the GPL. (This idea of circumventing the GPL was regularly floated on gnu.misc.discuss while I followed it.) Cheers, Berwin __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Deepayan, DS == Deepayan Sarkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DS A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, DS it governs distribution. Specifically, As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago, but if I remember correctly sometimes in the (early?) '90s the following case was discussed. A company made a binary module available for download and gave the instructions go to the FSF site (or a mirror), download version X.Y.Z of program U and compile it with these options, then link our module and start the program, now you can use these features of ours and are in business. (Remember, these were the days when most free software was only available in .tar.gz form, people were used to compile their own software and slackware was the dominant (only?) linux distribution, no .rpm or .deb files.) Note also that they did not distribute any GPL code, they said go and get it. As far as I remember, they were told by the FSF that they cannot do this and had to stop. And, IIRC, the argument was that whether they did the linking or let the end user do the linking was the same and, hence, the GPL was violated. DS I'll readily concede that my interpretation may be flawed, but DS this example doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. This DS binary module was clearly (in the opinion of the FSF) a DS derivative work of something that was GPL, and hence the DS company was violating the GPL by distributing the binary DS module under a license other than the GPL. Well, the question is whether the binary module is a derivative work. Note, the GPL makes four (4) references to derivatives and derivative work. The one most relevant in this discussion is probably the one in paragraph 0.: [...] The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. [...] So they are actually referring to copyright law to define what a derivative work is, and this law might be different in different countries. Thus, whether you violate the GPL or not may well depend on where you are located. Another question is when does the work becomes a derived work? I believe few will disagree that at the moment the two components are dynamically linked, a derivative work is produced. Whether something is a derivative work before the linking, is a debatable question. But, as I wanted to illustrate with this example, even if you make the user do the linking, in that moment a product is created that violates the GPL and the user looses all rights to the GPL part of this new product (at least that is may understanding). Hence, a user can (be made to) violate the GPL. DS Also, as far as I can tell, your description applies to the DS situation with Nvidia's binary kernel drivers for the Linux DS kernel (which is GPL and not LGPL AFAIK), A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the linux kernel is developed under the GPL. There are actually reports that the developers are currently discussing to move to GPL 3 (a bit strange, since GPL 3 is, AFAIK, open to discussion but not yet released) and many of them wanting to stick with GPL 2. (Another thing I find strange, because given the standard clause, one can take GPL 2 code, modify it and then release the new version under GPL 3 [or later].) DS which is obviously tolerated, so there must have been some DS other nuances. It is, but there are problems. I have computers with an Nvidia card and run Debian. Quite often, when the kernel image pacakge is updated (even if the same version numbers are kept!), my system breaks and until I recompile the interface to the Nvidia binaries, I cannot use X. Interfacing proprietary binary modules to linux seems to be a perennial problem. Recently (0.5-1 year ago), there were some reports on relevant sites that somebody who was providing support for binary drivers of some digital camera got very upset with how it was made harder and harder for him to provide this support. And when some code was removed from the kernel which made it possible for him to provide the support (and the argument for the removal was that the code only serves this purpose), he really spit the dummy and asked that his code and any other code that he had provided to the linux kernel be removed. As far as I remember, Linus complied but a huge discussion ensued on whether he was actully allowed to withdraw all his code. I did not follow this incidence though to see how it was eventually resolved. DS In any case, this is the
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Hi, let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: I was responding to the following paragraph in your reply to Spencer: Berwin A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd code in S-PLUS. At some point, I got the impression that according to the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code (in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into S-PLUS by the R code. My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. /Berwin to which I replied that Deepayan A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, it governs distribution. /Deepayan As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him by the GPL to the GPL-d part P. Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has lost his rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. He does NOT lose the rights to use P. To violate the GPL, he has to copy, modify or distribute P (which are illegal without the rights granted by the GPL), at which point he no longer remains a mere user. This is what I meant when I said that a user can never violate the GPL. Sorry for any confusion. A few other comments below... On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the linux kernel is developed under the GPL. There are actually reports that the developers are currently discussing to move to GPL 3 (a bit strange, since GPL 3 is, AFAIK, open to discussion but not yet released) and many of them wanting to stick with GPL 2. (Another thing I find strange, because given the standard clause, one can take GPL 2 code, modify it and then release the new version under GPL 3 [or later].) Linux is under GPL2, and not GPL2 or later. As far as I know, there's no real discussion; Linus has said he doesn't like (the intents of) GPL3, and it's virtually impossible anyway to track down all copyright holders and get their permission to change the license. DS In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we DS were originally discussing: there one wants to distribute a DS GPL-d module that possibly links into a proprietary system. As DS far as I can tell, the example you quoted above has no DS relevance in this situation. First, the e-mail that you are answering to was written in reply to your e-mail claiming that a user cannot violate the GPL. IMO, to make this statement true, you have to be careful in how you define user. The e-mail was not written as a reply or input to Spencer's e-mail. Secondly, I have admitted already on this list, and I am happy to admit it again, that English is my second language. But I am quite sure that my command of English is not so bad that I completely misunderstand the point of a discussion. So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as the situation we were originally discussing. I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your example. Deepayan __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. After section 2.c, the GPL continues, If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is arguably derived from R. Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it could reasonably be considered independent of R. If my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL. A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to give it to them. I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. This surprises me, given the comment on http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml; that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries. That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who distribute more general AD Model Builder software, could be required to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use. This should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model Builder produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a src subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to distribute source code for the AD Model Builder itself, since that has an independent existence. If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know. Best Wishes, Spencer Graves Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote: While reading the various answers, I've remembered that the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting something, there are some packages in R that has a more restrictive licence than GPL. HTH, Rogerio. Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. So I suspect that this would be a non-issue. If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even secure a little PR benefit for having done so. Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE? If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD. There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable example. So: License: GPL CD: Don't need one Purchase:Donation to the R Foundation Being able to use R: Priceless :-) HTH, Marc Schwartz __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:43 -0700, Spencer Graves wrote:
I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of
the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1):
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
After section 2.c, the GPL continues, If identifiable sections of
that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works.
I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is
arguably derived from R. Even if R code were not derived from R, I
don't see how it could reasonably be considered independent of R. If
my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer
to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such
claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL.
{I cleared the recipients list out as this would have required moderator
intervention before getting through}
IANAL [1] but AFAICS this is referring to the source for R itself, not
code written in the R language. Therefore, glmmADMB would not be
violating the GPL as it is not releasing the source for R (or parts
thereof) under a different or more restrictive licence. The authors of
glmmADMB are free to choose their own licensing terms for their
software, and they appear to have licenced the linking R code under the
GPL. However, they are not required to release their ADMB software under
the GPL or provide the source code, because it doesn't include GPL
software as an integral part.
Again, IANAL and may have got this all wrong - happy to be corrected -
but that is my understanding...
G
[1] I Am Not A Lawyer
A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I read
the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone
wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to
give it to them. I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I
downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. This
surprises me, given the comment on http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml;
that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries.
That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather,
it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who
distribute more general AD Model Builder software, could be required
to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use.
This should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model Builder
produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a src
subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to
distribute source code for the AD Model Builder itself, since that has
an independent existence.
If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know.
Best Wishes,
Spencer Graves
Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote:
While reading the various answers, I've remembered that
the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting
something, there are some packages in R that has a more
restrictive licence than GPL.
HTH,
Rogerio.
Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have
non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used
by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy.
So I suspect that this would be a non-issue.
If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the
most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they
could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even
secure a little PR benefit for having done so.
Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE?
If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set
already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD.
There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be
purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need
for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable
example.
So:
License: GPL
CD: Don't need one
Purchase:Donation to the R Foundation
Being able to use R: Priceless
:-)
HTH,
Marc Schwartz
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide!
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
It is my understanding that interpreted code is
considered to be data and hence not able to be
legally restricted in the same way that compiled
code can be.
Patrick Burns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44 (0)20 8525 0696
http://www.burns-stat.com
(home of S Poetry and A Guide for the Unwilling S User)
Gavin Simpson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:43 -0700, Spencer Graves wrote:
I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of
the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1):
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
After section 2.c, the GPL continues, If identifiable sections of
that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works.
I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is
arguably derived from R. Even if R code were not derived from R, I
don't see how it could reasonably be considered independent of R. If
my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer
to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such
claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL.
{I cleared the recipients list out as this would have required moderator
intervention before getting through}
IANAL [1] but AFAICS this is referring to the source for R itself, not
code written in the R language. Therefore, glmmADMB would not be
violating the GPL as it is not releasing the source for R (or parts
thereof) under a different or more restrictive licence. The authors of
glmmADMB are free to choose their own licensing terms for their
software, and they appear to have licenced the linking R code under the
GPL. However, they are not required to release their ADMB software under
the GPL or provide the source code, because it doesn't include GPL
software as an integral part.
Again, IANAL and may have got this all wrong - happy to be corrected -
but that is my understanding...
G
[1] I Am Not A Lawyer
A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I read
the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone
wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to
give it to them. I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I
downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. This
surprises me, given the comment on http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml;
that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries.
That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather,
it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who
distribute more general AD Model Builder software, could be required
to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use.
This should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model Builder
produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a src
subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to
distribute source code for the AD Model Builder itself, since that has
an independent existence.
If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know.
Best Wishes,
Spencer Graves
Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote:
While reading the various answers, I've remembered that
the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting
something, there are some packages in R that has a more
restrictive licence than GPL.
HTH,
Rogerio.
Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have
non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used
by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy.
So I suspect that this would be a non-issue.
If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the
most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they
could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even
secure a little PR benefit for having done so.
Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE?
If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set
already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD.
There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be
purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need
for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable
example.
So:
License: GPL
CD: Don't need one
Purchase:Donation to the R Foundation
Being able to use R: Priceless
:-)
HTH,
Marc Schwartz
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/19/06, Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. After section 2.c, the GPL continues, If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is arguably derived from R. Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it could reasonably be considered independent of R. If my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL. A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to give it to them. I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. This surprises me, given the comment on http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml; that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries. That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who distribute more general AD Model Builder software, could be required to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use. This should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model Builder produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a src subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to distribute source code for the AD Model Builder itself, since that has an independent existence. If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know. This sort of question is inevitably answered in the GPL FAQ (which is intended for the non-lawyers among us, unlike the GPL): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html My personal feeling has been that very few people on the R lists understand the GPL, so I would not recommend posts here as a source of knowledge on the matter :-) Deepayan __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
G'day Spencer, SG == Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SG I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written SG in R is arguably derived from R. IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss in which the interpretation of the various licences are regularly discussed. SG Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it SG could reasonably be considered independent of R. R is one implementation of the S language. If the R code works without modification under S-PLUS (another implementation), then I believe you can argue that it is independent of R. On the user level, it might well be the case that most commands work in R and S-PLUS, but on the package developer lever there are enough differences that typically the same code does not work on both, R and S-PLUS, and that you have to make small adjustments depending on the package. If all R specific code is within if(is.R()) constructs (and likewise for all S-PLUS specific code), then you can probably still argue independence. It might become trickier if you handle the R/S-PLUS specific code externally via Perl/Python/??? scripts and provide files with (slightly) different code for the R package and the S-PLUS package. In this case the R code for the R package is presumably derived from R and has to be put under the GPL. A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd code in S-PLUS. At some point, I got the impression that according to the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code (in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into S-PLUS by the R code. My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. For this reason I started to use the LGPL for S-PLUS packages that I put on statlib. I noticed that when these packages were ported to R, the licence was changed to GPL, but that is o.k. and allowed by the LGPL. I guess this question will soon become more interesting again since there have been e-mails to this mailing list that S-PLUS wants to become more compatible to R so that packages developed for R can be easily used (ported?) to S-PLUS. I guess the guys in Insightful have to be very careful on how they do that... :) SG A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I SG read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. According to the DESCRIPTION file (at least the 0.3 version for linux) it does. SG This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors SG of that package are required to give it to them. I agree, but isn't it all there? Or are you talking about the files in the (inst/)admb directory? The authors of that package should probably write somewhere tht the files in that directory are not under the GPL and everything would be fine. SG I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I SG downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. SG This surprises me, given the comment on SG http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml; that we generally do not SG accept submissions of precompiled binaries. But from where die you download it? I cannot see it on CRAN. I found it on the web-site of Otter Research and, presumably, they are free to distribute packages that contain precompiled binaries. SG That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. SG Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research SG (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who distribute more general AD SG Model Builder software, could be required to make freely SG available source code for all the binaries they use. This SG should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model SG Builder produces C++ code, which they could easily include in SG a src subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT SG require them to distribute source code for the AD Model SG Builder itself, since that has an independent existence. I definitely agree to the latter. But from a quick look at the R code it seems to me that this packge does not dynamically link any code into R. Rather, it seems that the communication with the precompiled binaries are via calls to system() and communications via files written into a temporary directory. So while the C++ code could be made available in the src subdirectory, I don't see why the GPL would require them to do so. Those binaries seem to be also stand-alone and independent. You can probably reverse-engineer the R code to see how you could use them without R. SG If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like SG to know. I guess the above indicates that I have partly a different interpretation than you have. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer. And as the German proverb goes Wo kein Klaeger ist, ist auch kein Richter---which means that you will probably only get
Re: [R] How can you buy R? [Broadcast]
My understanding is that if a licensee wants to redistribute GPL code (or work derived from GPL code), then it has to be done under GPL as well, meaning the person must make it known to users that they can have access to the source code if so desired, and they can do anything they want with that code (including selling), but GPL must remain in force for further redistribution. FSF used to sell Emacs source code on tape for around $200, and I believe Richard Stallman was able to get quite a bit of support through that channel. The idea of having R Foundation selling CDs had come up before. Unfortunately I believe the R Foundation does not have the manpower or resource to do that. I do not believe code written in a GPL language is automatically GPL'ed. To me a language (or, more specifically, a system if you will) is not unlike an OS. There are plenty of commercial software for Linux. I believe those people must feel quite confident that they are not covered (or infected?) by GPL. Just my $0.02... Andy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Spencer Graves Sent: Fri 5/19/2006 6:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch; Damien Joly Subject: Re: [R] How can you buy R? [Broadcast] I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. After section 2.c, the GPL continues, If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is arguably derived from R. Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it could reasonably be considered independent of R. If my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable; such claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL. A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to give it to them. I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. This surprises me, given the comment on http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml that we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries. That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/ http://www.otter-rsch.com/ ), who distribute more general AD Model Builder software, could be required to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use. This should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model Builder produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a src subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT require them to distribute source code for the AD Model Builder itself, since that has an independent existence. If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know. Best Wishes, Spencer Graves Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote: While reading the various answers, I've remembered that the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting something, there are some packages in R that has a more restrictive licence than GPL. HTH, Rogerio. Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. So I suspect that this would be a non-issue. If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even secure a little PR benefit for having done so. Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE? If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD. There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable example. So: License: GPL CD: Don't need one Purchase
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were required to release it under GPL (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not, given that communication is between processes and the R code is interpreted). Rather, it is stated to be under GPL _but_ there is no source code offer for the executables (and the GPL FAQ says that for anonymous FTP it should be downloadable via the same site, and the principles apply equally to HTTP sites). As the executables are not for my normal OS and I would like to exercise my freedom to try the GPLed code, I have requested the sources from the package maintainer. Once again, the GPL FAQ and its references, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, are a more informed source than mailing lists. If you think you understand it, try the exam at http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi (cheaper than testing in court). On Sat, 20 May 2006, Berwin A Turlach wrote: G'day Spencer, SG == Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SG I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written SG in R is arguably derived from R. IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss in which the interpretation of the various licences are regularly discussed. SG Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it SG could reasonably be considered independent of R. R is one implementation of the S language. If the R code works without modification under S-PLUS (another implementation), then I believe you can argue that it is independent of R. On the user level, it might well be the case that most commands work in R and S-PLUS, but on the package developer lever there are enough differences that typically the same code does not work on both, R and S-PLUS, and that you have to make small adjustments depending on the package. If all R specific code is within if(is.R()) constructs (and likewise for all S-PLUS specific code), then you can probably still argue independence. It might become trickier if you handle the R/S-PLUS specific code externally via Perl/Python/??? scripts and provide files with (slightly) different code for the R package and the S-PLUS package. In this case the R code for the R package is presumably derived from R and has to be put under the GPL. A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd code in S-PLUS. At some point, I got the impression that according to the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code (in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into S-PLUS by the R code. My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. For this reason I started to use the LGPL for S-PLUS packages that I put on statlib. I noticed that when these packages were ported to R, the licence was changed to GPL, but that is o.k. and allowed by the LGPL. I guess this question will soon become more interesting again since there have been e-mails to this mailing list that S-PLUS wants to become more compatible to R so that packages developed for R can be easily used (ported?) to S-PLUS. I guess the guys in Insightful have to be very careful on how they do that... :) SG A boundary case is provided by the glmmADMB package. As I SG read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL. According to the DESCRIPTION file (at least the 0.3 version for linux) it does. SG This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors SG of that package are required to give it to them. I agree, but isn't it all there? Or are you talking about the files in the (inst/)admb directory? The authors of that package should probably write somewhere tht the files in that directory are not under the GPL and everything would be fine. SG I just noticed that the version of glmmADMB that I SG downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a src subdirectory. SG This surprises me, given the comment on SG http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml; that we generally do not SG accept submissions of precompiled binaries. But from where die you download it? I cannot see it on CRAN. I found it on the web-site of Otter Research and, presumably, they are free to distribute packages that contain precompiled binaries. SG That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it. SG Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research SG (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who distribute more general AD SG Model Builder software, could be required to make freely SG available source code for all the binaries they use. This SG should be fairly easy for them, because their AD Model SG Builder produces C++ code, which they could easily include in SG a src subdirectory of their package. The GPL would NOT SG require them to distribute source code for the AD
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/20/06, Berwin A Turlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Spencer, SG == Spencer Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SG I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written SG in R is arguably derived from R. IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss in which the interpretation of the various licences are regularly discussed. SG Even if R code were not derived from R, I don't see how it SG could reasonably be considered independent of R. R is one implementation of the S language. If the R code works without modification under S-PLUS (another implementation), then I believe you can argue that it is independent of R. On the user level, it might well be the case that most commands work in R and S-PLUS, but on the package developer lever there are enough differences that typically the same code does not work on both, R and S-PLUS, and that you have to make small adjustments depending on the package. If all R specific code is within if(is.R()) constructs (and likewise for all S-PLUS specific code), then you can probably still argue independence. It might become trickier if you handle the R/S-PLUS specific code externally via Perl/Python/??? scripts and provide files with (slightly) different code for the R package and the S-PLUS package. In this case the R code for the R package is presumably derived from R and has to be put under the GPL. A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd code in S-PLUS. At some point, I got the impression that according to the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code (in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into S-PLUS by the R code. My understanding was that in that moment a product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package. A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, it governs distribution. Specifically, quoteActivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted.../quote Distribution of source is fairly straightforward (and it's perfectly fine for you to distribute source on statlib under the GPL). Things become more interesting when any one (e.g. Insightful) distributes binaries (of a package/chapter in R/S, say) under the GPL, because they are required by the GPL to supply (upon request) not only the 'source' (of the package or chapter), but also all the tools required to reproduce the binary version from the source. I'm not sure how this works in S-PLUS, but in R it would mean everything needed to do an R CMD INSTALL. There's a standard exception for this in the GPL, namely, you don't need to supply quoteanything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs/quote. S-PLUS would certainly not qualify among these. However, the original author can add an exception to the license specifically for S-PLUS, as noted in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs For this reason I started to use the LGPL for S-PLUS packages that I put on statlib. I noticed that when these packages were ported to R, the licence was changed to GPL, but that is o.k. and allowed by the LGPL. I guess this question will soon become more interesting again since there have been e-mails to this mailing list that S-PLUS wants to become more compatible to R so that packages developed for R can be easily used (ported?) to S-PLUS. I guess the guys in Insightful have to be very careful on how they do that... :) Deepayan -- http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~deepayan/ __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Hello, ihmo you could buy quantian and find several third-party resellers on dirk's page stated below. http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html regards, christian Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Thanks, Damien [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Surely the entity is saying you will only be able to use software for which you have a valid licence. They are (rightly) worried about employees installing pirate copies of software which, if audited, could lead to huge fines. While there is plenty of software for which one has to pay for such a licence, R's licence is the GNU GPL - a completely valid and proper licence that gives you a legal right to use it. (If you 'buy R', my understanding is that, under its licence, all you'd be allowed to pay for is the medium it is carried on, not the program itself.) Stuart - Original Message - From: Damien Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: [R] How can you buy R? Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Thanks, Damien [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote: Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Well, first, have you pointed out to whatever limited neurons came up with that specification, that this will mean that part of your job can no longer be done because their specifications appear to rule out a key tool? Second, R is available for windows and works quite well. While there is no charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL. Theoretically, is system security is the actual issue, then the individual in charge of software acquisition can download and install it for you. All of that should be clear and above board and shouldn't compromise anything unless the entity you work for has become contractually constrained to avoid using OS ware for some obscure and irrational reason. What do they actually expect to gain from this policy? The _expensive_ alternative is to have them purchase S-Plus for you. If you present them with an estimated cost and l imagine they might think having the BOFH download R for windows for you might be the cost-effective way to go. JD __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
These beliefs are very prevelant. The IT person for my group doesn't beleieve in the concept of _free_ software and actually expects me to be arrested some day for using R at work! All I can say is keep the faith. On 5/19/06, J Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote: Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Well, first, have you pointed out to whatever limited neurons came up with that specification, that this will mean that part of your job can no longer be done because their specifications appear to rule out a key tool? Second, R is available for windows and works quite well. While there is no charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL. Theoretically, is system security is the actual issue, then the individual in charge of software acquisition can download and install it for you. All of that should be clear and above board and shouldn't compromise anything unless the entity you work for has become contractually constrained to avoid using OS ware for some obscure and irrational reason. What do they actually expect to gain from this policy? The _expensive_ alternative is to have them purchase S-Plus for you. If you present them with an estimated cost and l imagine they might think having the BOFH download R for windows for you might be the cost-effective way to go. JD __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On 5/19/06, J Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While there is no charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL. At one company I was working for, I had to run all the licenses of all the software I had on my machine, through the legal department. When they read GNU Public License (GPL) their only comment was: We have no idea what that license means. Do not touch any software using it. Jarek On 5/19/06, J Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote: Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Well, first, have you pointed out to whatever limited neurons came up with that specification, that this will mean that part of your job can no longer be done because their specifications appear to rule out a key tool? Second, R is available for windows and works quite well. While there is no charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL. Theoretically, is system security is the actual issue, then the individual in charge of software acquisition can download and install it for you. All of that should be clear and above board and shouldn't compromise anything unless the entity you work for has become contractually constrained to avoid using OS ware for some obscure and irrational reason. What do they actually expect to gain from this policy? The _expensive_ alternative is to have them purchase S-Plus for you. If you present them with an estimated cost and l imagine they might think having the BOFH download R for windows for you might be the cost-effective way to go. JD __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote: Hi all, HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Would cheapbytes ( http://www.cheapbytes.com/ ) work? http://shop.cheapbytes.com/cgi-bin/cart/0070010796.html although this page looks awfully old ... Quantian may be better/more recent http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/R/Rhelp02a/archive/38930.html although you might have to convince your legal people that this Linux software would also be legal on Windows ... what is a licensed software vendor? __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
While reading the various answers, I've remembered that the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting something, there are some packages in R that has a more restrictive licence than GPL. HTH, Rogerio. - Original Message - From: Damien Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:51 PM Subject: [R] How can you buy R? Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Thanks, Damien [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote: While reading the various answers, I've remembered that the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting something, there are some packages in R that has a more restrictive licence than GPL. HTH, Rogerio. Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. So I suspect that this would be a non-issue. If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even secure a little PR benefit for having done so. Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE? If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD. There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable example. So: License: GPL CD: Don't need one Purchase:Donation to the R Foundation Being able to use R: Priceless :-) HTH, Marc Schwartz __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Thanks for this (and everyone else's!) responses! I really appreciate it. You've all given me a lot of potential workarounds. Damien p.s., I suspect this will apply to Firefox, GIMP, OOo.org, and all the other great OS tools I use on a daily basis. On 5/19/06, Marc Schwartz (via MN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote: While reading the various answers, I've remembered that the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting something, there are some packages in R that has a more restrictive licence than GPL. HTH, Rogerio. Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have non-commercial use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. So I suspect that this would be a non-issue. If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for something, they could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even secure a little PR benefit for having done so. Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE? If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD. There is an awful lot of commercial software out there than can be purchased online, properly licensed and downloaded, without the need for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable example. So: License: GPL CD: Don't need one Purchase:Donation to the R Foundation Being able to use R: Priceless :-) HTH, Marc Schwartz [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Jarek wrote: At one company I was working for, I had to run all the licenses of all the software I had on my machine, through the legal department. When they read GNU Public License (GPL) their only comment was: We have no idea what that license means. Do not touch any software using it. This is typical of lawyers' minds. If something is clear, rational, lucid, straightforward, unambigous, means what it says they can't understand it. cheers, Rolf __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
[R] How can you buy R?
Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Thanks, Damien [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
Damien, I think there isn't such a vendor. Maybe you can try to buy S-Plus. Maybe you can look for donations to R foundation or reading the licence term. HTH, Rogerio. - Original Message - From: Damien Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:51 PM Subject: [R] How can you buy R? Hi all, This may seem like a dumb question, but I work for an entity that is soon converting to XP across the board, and I will lose the ability to install software on my own. The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). This means I will soon lose the ability to use R at work - something I can't do without at this point. HOWEVER, I might be able to work around this policy if I can find a licensed software vendor, preferably in Canada, that sells R. I tried googling R vendors but was unsuccessful. Any ideas? Thanks, Damien [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] How can you buy R?
[Damien Joly] The entity has a policy of only using software that has been purchased and properly licensed (whatever that means). [...] Any ideas? [Rogerio Porto] I think there isn't such a vendor. A while ago, the Cygnus organisation has been created to address this kind of need, betting on the fact that they could live well by support contracts on free software, mainly GPL'ed software, which R is. Since then, Cygnus has been bought by Redhat, and I do not know if the original vocation survived, or has been plain lost. With enough luck, it could be useful to check on this side, who knows... :-) -- François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
