On Sunday 17 September 2006 1:53 am, you wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are asking, but in general R's GPL license is
> completely irrelevant unless you are distributing R. If you're
> writing a package and distributing only your own work, you can
> license it as you like.
>[snip]
I realize how
On 9/16/2006 10:42 PM, Logan Lewis wrote:
> It is my understanding that R is licensed under the GPL with the
> exception of a few header files for the purposes of linking binary code
> with R under non-GPL licenses.
>
> However, the R-base package itself is licensed under the GPL, as are
> many
It is my understanding that R is licensed under the GPL with the
exception of a few header files for the purposes of linking binary code
with R under non-GPL licenses.
However, the R-base package itself is licensed under the GPL, as are
many (but not all) packages in CRAN. Furthermore, basical
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 12:12 -0500, Kevin Wright wrote:
>> R has had the ability to generate pdfs with transparent colors for a
>> couple of years now using pdf(..., version="1.4").
I presume we are talking about translucency aka semitransparenc
> "PD" == Peter Dalgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on 16 Sep 2006 00:19:59 +0200 writes:
PD> "Marc Schwartz (via MN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 16:05 -0500, Jeffrey Horner wrote:
>> > Forgive me, but since it's Friday and I've been thinking about comm
