[R] How can you buy R?

[Patrick Burns]

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
patrick at burns-stat.com
+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 at 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 at 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
>>    
>>