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
or another. I just want the project to flourish.
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
On 11/28/2013 5:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> There's no meaningful legal distinction between static and dynamic
> linking. And pretty much everyone agrees t
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 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 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 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 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 m
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 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 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
"
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
On 1/7/2009 5:13 PM Alan G Isaac apparently wrote:
> Access to robjects
> does not match the documentation
Badly put: I should have said that
*representation* of robjects does
not match the documentation.
(And is therefore much less useful.)
Alan
I installed rpy using the most recent Windows installers.
Testing the installation produces 7 failures (not the 2
suggested in the documentation). Access to robjects
does not match the documentation at:
http://rpy.sourceforge.net/rpy2/doc/html/introduction.html#the-r-instance
Example below.
Alan
14 matches
Mail list logo
