On 05/29/2015 03:31 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
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.
I d
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 l
The GitHub search feature is also quite useful for seeing how other package
authors have constructed Makevars (or Makevars.win) when compiling with
custom targets. For example, a quick search of how some authors manipulate
OBJECTS in Makevars.win:
https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=OBJECT
On 29/05/2015 9:52 AM, Charles Determan wrote:
I am actively working on an R package that will incorporate some CUDA code
for using NVIDIA GPU devices. I am quite familiar with Rcpp for C++ code
and accustomed to using a Makevars file for specifying compiler options.
However I am stumped current
I am actively working on an R package that will incorporate some CUDA code
for using NVIDIA GPU devices. I am quite familiar with Rcpp for C++ code
and accustomed to using a Makevars file for specifying compiler options.
However I am stumped currently about how to use the NVCC compiler for the
.cu
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 11:44, Pieter Eendebak wrote:
| Dear developers,
|
| How can I specify the license for my package when my package includes some
| code with other licenses (and different copyright holders). In particular:
|
| - my package is BSD 2-
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 generall
Thank you Thomas, I guess there is nothing, that I am aware of, that
prevents me from releasing with GPL >= 2 but I wanted to get some insights
as to what would be a best practice. I prefer to give as much credit as
possible where it is do.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Petzoldt <
thom
On 29 May 2015 at 11:44, Pieter Eendebak wrote:
| Dear developers,
|
| How can I specify the license for my package when my package includes some
| code with other licenses (and different copyright holders). In particular:
|
| - my package is BSD 2-clause
| - my packages in includes MPL-2 code (
Dear Pieter,
there was recently a related discussion in the JSS editorial board. Some
people took the position that there should be maximum possible freedom
for software developers in choosing an appropriate license. Others saw
the problem of confusion for users and developers of derived work,
Dear developers,
How can I specify the license for my package when my package includes some
code with other licenses (and different copyright holders). In particular:
- my package is BSD 2-clause
- my packages in includes MPL-2 code (Eigen math library)
- my package includes some MIT code (differ
Hi,
I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the MIT license allows
re-licensing of derived work under the GPL.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
So what speaks against releasing your derived work under the GPL >= 2?
Thomas
On
I should also mention that on the machine that had this problem, the user
had installed some software that provided the du program in
c:/windows/system32.
On that machine, with 64-bit R:
> > system2("du")
> Du v1.34 - report directory disk usage
Copyright (C) 2005-2009 Mark Russinovich
Sysint
13 matches
Mail list logo
