On 11/27/2013 3:43 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> This is_embedding_ as RPy2 embeds R from an outer Python application (just
> like my RInside project does for C++).
I don't think introducing a new, undefined term helps clarify things.
For a good discussion see
http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/s
On 11/27/2013 3:43 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> The rest of the thread is by now mostly pure trolling.
Hi Dirk,
That is really uncalled for and does nothing
to answer the questions I asked, which as I
said, were real questions.
And if you mean my question to Artur, that was
also asked sincere
On 27 November 2013 at 13:21, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
| On 27 November 2013 12:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| So you end up _running_ R. And hence inherit its license.
|
| This is not my project (and I merely look after its integration into
Debian
| and thereby also Ubuntu) but I
On 27 November 2013 12:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> So you end up _running_ R. And hence inherit its license.
>
> This is not my project (and I merely look after its integration into Debian
> and thereby also Ubuntu) but I would want to make it very clear that tools
> like RPy2 (or RInside) ca
On 27 November 2013 at 11:51, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
| Can I suggest that we bring the discussion back to rpy2? People have been
Yes please! The rest of the thread is by now mostly pure trolling.
| arguing about the abstract merits of different licenses for decades, and we're
| not going to reso
On 11/27/2013 3:09 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> I am in favor of GPL, which will protect my rights
> as an user of rpy2 as my own software depends on it.
Which user rights do you fear would be lost if
RPy were under an LGPL license? Or even under a
BSD license?
Thanks,
Alan
--
On 27 November 2013 12:09, Alex Mandel wrote:
> FYI, if changes are required to rmagic from the rpy2 side, just
> contribute it directly to rmagic and pull a new copy back to rpy2 no
> license change required.
>
We'll probably drop rmagic from IPython once it's in a released version of
rpy2, so
On 11/27/2013 11:51 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> Can I suggest that we bring the discussion back to rpy2? People have been
> arguing about the abstract merits of different licenses for decades, and
> we're not going to resolve that debate here.
>
> R is GPL licensed, while most of the Python ecosys
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 2:24 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
>> We might have some evidence that this or that license worked well for
>> a given project, but purpose of a license is to give various groups of people
>> certain rights. Simple as that.
>
>
> W
Can I suggest that we bring the discussion back to rpy2? People have been
arguing about the abstract merits of different licenses for decades, and
we're not going to resolve that debate here.
R is GPL licensed, while most of the Python ecosystem in which people use
rpy2 uses BSD style licenses. I'
On 11/27/2013 2:24 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> We might have some evidence that this or that license worked well for
> a given project, but purpose of a license is to give various groups of people
> certain rights. Simple as that.
Well, no. Did you read the piece by John Hunter
that I posted?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 1:41 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
>> GPL was never
>> designed to bring more contributions to a project.
>
>
> Exactly.
Also, I do not think any other license was created for such purpose.
We might have some evidence that this
On 11/27/2013 1:41 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> GPL was never
> designed to bring more contributions to a project.
Exactly.
Alan Isaac
--
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organ
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 8:53 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> That the GPL is viral is still a feature and not a bug.
>
[...]
> If a project gets fewer users
> and fewer code contributions by choosing the GPL,
> it is hard to see that as a good thing.
On 11/27/2013 12:34 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> Just to be clear, these are real questions, not attempts at debating points.
One other thing. I am not arguing for a particular license.
As I do not contribute to RPy, I would consider that presumptuous.
I only argue that code creators should make th
On 11/27/2013 10:18 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Wishing alone does not make the facts go away. RPy / RPy2 still link to R,
> and use its headers.
Hi Dirk,
1. I'm still not understanding why you refer to the header files?
As I said, as far as I know Stallman and the FSF have
not changed their
On 27 November 2013 at 09:57, Alan G Isaac wrote:
| On 11/27/2013 8:53 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > That the GPL is viral is still a feature and not a bug.
| I understand RPy to target the Python scientific programming community.
Wishing alone does not make the facts go away. RPy / RPy2 st
On 11/27/2013 8:53 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> That the GPL is viral is still a feature and not a bug.
Hi Dirk,
I do not understand how this statement can be made so broadly,
independently of the project goals and idiosyncratic aspects of
the project and user community. If a project gets f
On 27 November 2013 at 08:34, Alan G Isaac wrote:
| On 11/27/2013 7:58 AM, Luca Beltrame wrote:
| > I'd prefer strong licenses like the LGPL or the GPL (but I'm an
| > academic), regardless of which is more "comfortable" for a given community.
|
| I am also an academic. I think the implications
On 11/27/2013 7:58 AM, Luca Beltrame wrote:
> I'd prefer strong licenses like the LGPL or the GPL (but I'm an
> academic), regardless of which is more "comfortable" for a given community.
I am also an academic. I think the implications of my
word "comfortable" have been misunderstood. What is
"
In data mercoledì 27 novembre 2013 13:55:17, Alan G Isaac ha scritto:
> Ask a lawyer, but probably not. In my opinion, the LGPL
> (or even BSD) is available as a choice, if the project
OTOH, I'd prefer strong licenses like the LGPL or the GPL (but I'm an
academic), regardless of which is more "c
On 11/26/2013 11:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> 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) l
22 matches
Mail list logo
