Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > > On 25.03.2017 14:29, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently >> interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source >>

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On 25.03.2017 14:29, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > Dear All, > > thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently > interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source > contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite > limited: I would

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Dear All, thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite limited: I would most likely need to use a remote procedure call API, and build

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Have the lawyers look at Microsoft R, it seems the license is not very catching ultimately. Perhaps you could use a similar ruse, or even align to that project instead. Cheers, Mike On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 00:54 Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > Dear All, > > I've been following

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote: > | attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do, > | is not accepted on CRAN. > > He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN. > > He asked

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote: | attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do, | is not accepted on CRAN. He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN. He asked whether he can use the open source work in his closed source product. Dirk --

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

: Marc Schwartz > Cc: R-Devel > Subject: Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package? > > My humble 2 nonlegal cents: > > There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary > software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

, March 24, 2017 8:14 AM To: Marc Schwartz Cc: R-Devel Subject: Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package? My humble 2 nonlegal cents: There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a lot

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

My humble 2 nonlegal cents: There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a lot more of these. All of these use essentially the same idea: - create the package under a standard GPL license -

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

See inline... > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but > its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) > > I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

as an interpreter. PS. "Infect" is an interesting choice of words in your email :) --Robert -Original Message- From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Mario Emmenlauer Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:53 AM To: r-devel@r-project.org Subject: [Rd] non-infectious lic

[Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Dear All, I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer advice, but I'd like to get your feedback on a license question. My goal is to develop commercial software