Re: [Rpy] Is the AGP still making sense ?

I believe R is dual licensed GPLv2 and GPLv3. So it is legally possible to take the GPLv3 option and then license rpy2 as AGPLv3, because GPLv3 has an exception to make it compatible with AGPLv3. But just releasing rpy2 with the same (dual) license as R seems simpler... On 26 Nov 2013 19:45, "Laure

Re: [Rpy] Is the AGP still making sense ?

On 11/26/2013 06:42 PM, Alex Mandel wrote: > On 11/26/2013 02:13 PM, Laurent Gautier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> With rpy2-2.4.0 getting closer, I am wondering about it: >> https://bitbucket.org/lgautier/rpy2/issue/171/license-is-the-agpl-making-sense >> >> >> >> L. >> >> > This is kinda interesting, since

Re: [Rpy] Is the AGP still making sense ?

On 11/26/2013 02:13 PM, Laurent Gautier wrote: > Hi, > > With rpy2-2.4.0 getting closer, I am wondering about it: > https://bitbucket.org/lgautier/rpy2/issue/171/license-is-the-agpl-making-sense > > > > L. > > This is kinda interesting, since R is GPLv2+ and rpy2 requires R to work. My quest

[Rpy] Is the AGP still making sense ?

Hi, With rpy2-2.4.0 getting closer, I am wondering about it: https://bitbucket.org/lgautier/rpy2/issue/171/license-is-the-agpl-making-sense L. -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT