Re: [Rpy] License Requirements (Was: Is the AGP still making sense ?)

On 11/30/2013 04:33 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: On 30 November 2013 13:11, Laurent Gautier > wrote: Yet, I am not convinced that a BSD-type license is appropriate here. The liberal licensing types can easily use the project in isolation, either with a

Re: [Rpy] License Requirements (Was: Is the AGP still making sense ?)

On 30 November 2013 13:11, Laurent Gautier wrote: > Yet, I am not convinced that a BSD-type license is appropriate here. The > liberal licensing types can easily use the project in isolation, either > with a module calling rpy2 > If your intention is that people can write code to call rpy2 (inst

Re: [Rpy] (New) License for rpy2

Thanks for checking that the list of contributors to contact is correct: https://bitbucket.org/lgautier/rpy2/issue/171/license-is-the-agpl-making-sense Best, Laurent On 11/29/2013 04:43 PM, Laurent Gautier wrote: Hi, Thanks to all for the participation, opinions, and recommendations. While

Re: [Rpy] License Requirements (Was: Is the AGP still making sense ?)

On 11/29/2013 06:53 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 11/29/2013 5:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> you seem to be flailing around, hoping that maybe >> there will be some loophole that means the law will work out to be the >> way you want? > Absolutely not. For one thing, I do not "want" one outcome >