On 14/11/2008 4:42 AM, Carlos Ungil wrote:
I know the standard answer to this kind of question is "get legal
advice from a lawyer", but I would like to hear the (hopefully
informed) opinion of other people.
I would say that, according to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL,
any R code using GPL packages can be distributed legally only using
GPL-compatible licenses.
I think they are talking about cases where the GPL libraries are
compiled into the new product. Packages generally don't include copies
of anything from R, so our GPL doesn't apply to them. (Writers may have
chosen to copy and modify base functions; if so, they are copying our
code, and the GPL would apply.)
Duncan Murdoch
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes
with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java
classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always
dynamically linked together.
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
classes in your program, you must release the program in a
GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java
interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.
If the reasoning above applies to R as it does to Perl, all R code
would be affected given that core packages like "base" are GPL.
The interpretation of the R Foundation (the copyright holder in this
case) seems more relaxed, but I wonder what is the intent of other
people distributing R packages under the GPL. Maybe some of them would
protest if R code using their package was distributed under a
non-GPL-compatible license. For example, I would expect the authors of
the GNU Scientific Library to defend that any package using "gsl" (a
wrapper on their GPL library) should be published under a
GPL-compatible license, being a derivative work (the FSF thinks so).
Another question is if that "strict" interpretation of the GPL could
be actually enforced, of course. Coming back to the GSL example, it
seems a more flagrant violation of the license is already happening:
http://www.numerit.com/gsl.htm (apparently the publisher of that
product thinks that linking to a GPL dll doesn't impose any obligation
to him, but the usual view of the FSF is quite the opposite; I just
found that page by chance, I don't know anything else about that
particular case).
I've noticed that this question was posed in r-devel a couple of years ago,
I'm surprised it didn't provoke more than one reply:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2006-September/042715.html
Cheers,
Carlos
PS: By the way, I think FAQ 2.11 should be fixed: it states that "R is
released under the GNU General Public License (GPL)", without
specifying the version and linking to
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (GPLv3). However, the COPYING
file in the R directory corresponds to GPL2.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
