I've looked at various threads on the r-devel archive and it looks like this
may have been discussed before, but as far as could tell, not to any great
resolution, and not, it seems, specifically covering this angle.
My understanding of LGPL is that ALL of the source files that go into R.dll (and
indeed all libraries that R.dll itself linked to, apart from those covered by
the system library exception) would need to be released under LGPL in order to
allow me to link to R.dll and not have my program subject to GPL. This would
apply to native libraries (dlls) providing functions in addon packages too.
If that weren't the situation then I could take a library covered by GPL,
write a different interface to it, put LGPL on those headers compile up a new
DLL and I've then got LGPL access to a library previously released under
GPL, which can't be the intention, otherwise LGPL would drive a coach and
horses through GPL.
There is provision in the GPL license (it's mentioned in the FAQ) for
providing for linking to a GPL library through one specific interface by
providing specific exception text in the copyright header in all of the files
that make up the library. That would only be possible if the copyright holders
of all relevant GPL code agreed to that, as that would be an extra grant to the
license. So if R linked to any third party GPL code, this wouldn't be
possible I don't think.
So I guess the question here is what the intention is of the R authors with
respect to the limitations or freedoms that they are intending to allow. After
all, as the copyright owners they aren't going to sue if a use falls outside
of their intention, even if on a strict interpretation of the license such use
wouldn't be allowed.
So it seems to be the intention that I can write a DLL to provide R functions in
an add on package, which requires linkage to R.dll. Not convinced that the
license it set up right to cover that, but that appears to be the intention.
Question is whether at the other end, at the invocation API end, whether it is
the intention to be able to use the invocation API and link to R.dll without my
program being subjected to GPL.
Note that I'm not talking here about anything to do with code written in the
language of R. This is purely concerned with treating R as a library with an
interface and wanting to link to that interface and whether the intention or the
actuality of the license allow that.
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Tom Quarendon
Sent: 03 August 2010 13:23
To: r-devel at r-project.org
Subject: [Rd] License for Rembedded.h
Possibly more of a legal question than a technical development question, but
here goes.
In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can
write R packages and distribute them under licenses not compatible with GPL, by
making the relevant header files available under the LGPL. This was an explicit
change that was made in February 2001, and allows for DLLs that require the API
header files for compilation and are linked against R.dll to not be
"infected" with the GPL.
However the Rembedded.h header file isn't included in the list in the
doc\COPYRIGHTS file, and the copyright statement in the Rembedded.h header file
lists the GPL and not the LGPL as the relevant license.
So it doesn't look like it is allowed that I be able to use the R invocation
API to launch R and embed it in my product (such as a new GUI, or integration
with another product) and ship that product under a license not compatible with
GPL? Is this correct? Or is it the intention that I be able to write a
commercial front-end of some kind for R?
Thanks!
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5336 (20100803) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5338 (20100803) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5338 (20100803) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com