Hi Dirk & Duncan,
I too like GPL and I had thought that the situation was as Duncan outlines.
Consequently, I had licensed `foo' as GPL >= 2.
However, because I have been unable to find a discussion of my case, in spite
of the extensive material about GNU licensing on the web, I have had diffic
On 19 January 2018 at 10:00, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| Also look eg at our Rblpapi package. The Bloomberg API is not open source,
| but they allow distribution of the (pre-built) library and headers. Our
| package, building on top, is GPL-2+. No issues. (This example is extra fun
Correction.
Chris,
I am with Duncan here.
You can license _your_ package any way you want and prefer. I like GPL.
You seem to imply that the GPL license prohibits linking against commercial
code. If that were the case we'd never have R, Emacs, gcc/g++, ... on
Windows or macOS or any of the now-essentially
On 19/01/2018 3:31 AM, Chris Brien wrote:
Dear list members,
I have come to realize that my understanding of free software licensing was
somewhat naïve. The problem is that I now find that, in spite of spending quite
a bit of time reading about various licenses on the web, I have been unable t
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chris Brien
wrote:
> Hi Barry,
>
> Ideally, I would prefer that my package remain open source.
>
> However, I have considered MIT and the two BSD licenses and I understand
> that they are permissive. I have not ruled out using one of them.
>
> The thing about tho
Hi Brian,
Fair point that even commercial packages have licenses.
In this case you can do neither of the things that you suggest might be
possible. It is the reason that I have never contemplated distributing `bar'
with `foo'.
Cheers,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: R-package-devel
Hi Barry,
Ideally, I would prefer that my package remain open source.
However, I have considered MIT and the two BSD licenses and I understand that
they are permissive. I have not ruled out using one of them.
The thing about those licenses is that I have not been able to find anything on
the w
Chris, on C) even commercial packages have licenses. If the commercial
package contains a linkable software library, that license is very
important in this discussion, because it tells you (us) what you can do
with that library.
It may say that you can distribute binary code you build with th
Hi Stefan,
Here are the answers:
A) No, I am simply calling routines.
B) By proprietary I mean that it is a commercial package.
C) No, it seemed better to use short, distinctive names for the two packages
and to focus on the essential issues, namely that `bar' is a commercial package
and that `
Chris,
you've not said what *you* would like the license for your software to do.
You could release the software under a "public domain", "no rights
reserved" style license, and then if people want to link it with
proprietary materials then nothing can stop them. But it wouldn't stop
people comme
Hi Chris,
Just for clarification, there are at least two aspects that affect how you
can license your package.
A) Do you distribute `bar` with your package, or are you simply calling
routines in `bar`?
B) What is the exact license of `bar`?
C) Is there a reason for this secrecy of `bar`? If we kne
Dear list members,
I have come to realize that my understanding of free software licensing was
somewhat naïve. The problem is that I now find that, in spite of spending quite
a bit of time reading about various licenses on the web, I have been unable to
identify a suitable license for the situa
12 matches
Mail list logo
