> Hmm, well... I have always understood it so that: (a) yes, it's GPL-2 (what > else could it be) and (b) it means that the restrictions of GPL apply insofar > as they make sense, e.g., you can pick it apart and reuse it in other GPL-2 > or compatible products, but not take it proprietary. Upon request, > distributors should probably be prepared to deliver a machine-readable > version of the source code. However, there is no requirement of attribution, > as with some of the CC licenses. > > By and large, I think this makes sense for technical documentation files. > E.g., the help file for poisson.test has stretches of text copied verbatim > from binom.test, and it would be ridiculous if such cross-pollination would > require that Peter, the author of poisson.test should put in a statement that > some of the text was borrowed from binom.test, by Kurt. (In this particular > case, both are (c) R Foundation, but you get the point.) > > For more extensive free-standing documents, there might be a point in using a > CC/FDL-style license instead. However, these licenses appear to be GPL > INcompatible, so some care is required. Until now, the GPL plus Common > Courtesy has worked well enough.
Ok - great. I ask because I've been working on a brief introduction to S3 that has been adapted from the R language definition - http://github.com/hadley/devtools/wiki/S3. I've included a note giving the source and stating that its licensed under GPL-2. Does that sound sufficient? Hadley -- Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
