On 29 May 2015 at 08:23, Drew Schmidt wrote: | | On 05/29/2015 07:56 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > Lastly, in many cases [eg when you link against libR], the "aggregate work" | > will be under GPL (>= 2) anyway. But within the "aggregate work" the code | > you added can be under a different license (as long as it is compatible). | | This is the generally the FSF's interpretation, but others disagree; for | instance http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html.
Well neither you nor I are lawyers but folks at eg Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/) and Software Freedom Law Center (https://www.softwarefreedom.org/) are, and they have views on this that differ from yours. One you could also point out that many commercial software firms (from large like RedHat to smaller like RStudio) seems to agree with this view. | In reality, this stuff has never been tested in court, so no one really | knows what the rules are. Sure but there is both a pending case which may change this and of course word of many cases settled before it had to move to court. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
