Barry Rowlingson wrote: > > This misconception of the license terms comes about because of the > use of the word 'use'. If I distribute a short C program that has a > call in it to a function that has the same name as something in the > GSL, does my C program use the GSL? No. Maybe it _mentions_ the GSL, > but the GPL has no problems with that.
Maybe the GPL has no problems with that, but GSL authors will have. For example, regarding a similar situation one of the GSL authors commented: [http://sourceware.org/ml/gsl-discuss/2001-q4/msg00033.html] > Any distributed code which refers to GSL functions should be licensed > to the end-user under the GPL. The intent of the GPL is that we make > our code free to other people if they do the same for us --- two-way > cooperation. The current R-quant license is not a free software > license so there should not be anything distributed under that license > which directly refers to GSL functions. Barry Rowlingson wrote: > > I'm distributing my C program, and not the GPL-covered code, so I can > license it how I like. > And the copyright owners have recourse to legal action if they think there is a license violation. Again, I don't know what a court would decide, but if you want to test the limits of the GPL license I would avoid challenging a GNU project :-) Cheers, Carlos -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R-packages-tp20497391p20504401.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ 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.
