Skip to content

How can you buy R?

29 messages · Rogerio Porto, François Pinard, Christian Schulz +12 more

Original

Messages 1–25 of 29

Rogerio Porto
# 
Damien,

I think there isn't such a vendor. Maybe you can try to buy S-Plus.
Maybe you can look for donations to R foundation or reading the
licence term.

HTH,

Rogerio.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Joly" <dojoly at gmail.com>
To: <r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
François Pinard
# 
[Rogerio Porto]
A while ago, the Cygnus organisation has been created to address this 
kind of need, betting on the fact that they could live well by support 
contracts on free software, mainly GPL'ed software, which R is.  Since 
then, Cygnus has been bought by Redhat, and I do not know if the 
original vocation survived, or has been plain lost.  With enough luck, 
it could be useful to check on this side, who knows... :-)
Christian Schulz
# 
Hello,

ihmo you could buy quantian  and find several third-party resellers
on dirk's page stated below.

http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html
regards, christian
root
# 
Surely the entity is saying you will only be able to use software for which 
you have a valid licence. They are (rightly) worried about employees 
installing pirate copies of software which, if audited, could lead to huge 
fines.

While there is plenty of software for which one has to pay for such a 
licence, R's licence is the GNU GPL - a completely valid and proper licence 
that gives you a legal right to use it.
(If you 'buy R', my understanding is that, under its licence, all you'd be 
allowed to pay for is the medium it is carried on, not the program itself.)

Stuart




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Joly" <dojoly at gmail.com>
To: <r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
John
#
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:51, Damien Joly wrote:
Well, first, have you pointed out to whatever limited neurons came up with 
that specification, that this will mean that part of your job can no longer 
be done because their specifications appear to rule out a key tool?  

Second, R is available for windows and works quite well.  While there is no 
charge for R, it IS properly licensed properly licensed under the GPL.  
Theoretically, is system security is the actual issue, then the individual in 
charge of software acquisition can download and install it for you.  All of 
that should be clear and above board and shouldn't compromise anything unless 
the "entity" you work for has become contractually constrained to avoid using 
OS ware for some obscure and irrational reason.

What do they actually expect to gain from this policy?

The _expensive_ alternative is to have them purchase S-Plus for you.  If you 
present them with an estimated cost and l imagine they might think having the 
BOFH download R for windows for you might be the cost-effective way to go.

JD
Rogerio Porto
# 
While reading the various answers, I've remembered that
the juridic part can't be that so simple. If I'm not fogeting
something, there are some packages in R that has a more
restrictive licence than GPL.

HTH,

Rogerio.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Joly" <dojoly at gmail.com>
To: <r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: [R] How can you buy R?
Marc Schwartz (via MN)
#
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:59 -0300, Rogerio Porto wrote:
Any CRAN packages (or other R packages not on CRAN) that have
"non-commercial" use restrictions, likely would not be able to be used
by the OP anyway, even prior to this new policy. 

So I suspect that this would be a non-issue.

If Damien's employer is willing to accept the GPL license (probably the
most significant issue) and feels the need to pay for "something", they
could make an appropriate donation to the R Foundation. Perhaps even
secure a little PR benefit for having done so.

Is Damien's employer allowing the use of Firefox instead of IE?  

If so, the precedent within the confines of the policy has been set
already. Firefox is GPL, free and no CD.

There is an awful lot of "commercial" software out there than can be
purchased online, "properly licensed" and downloaded, without the need
for a physical CD. Anti-virus software perhaps being the most notable
example.

So:

  License:             GPL
  CD:                  Don't need one
  Purchase:            Donation to the R Foundation
  Being able to use R: Priceless

:-)

HTH,

Marc Schwartz
Spencer Graves
# 
I'd like to know what people think is the meaning of section 2.b of 
the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1):

	  "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in 
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part 
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties 
under the terms of this License."

	  After section 2.c, the GPL continues, "If identifiable sections of 
that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably 
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this 
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you 
distribute them as separate works."

	  I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written in R is 
arguably "derived from" R.  Even if R code were not "derived from" R, I 
don't see how it could "reasonably be considered independent" of R.  If 
my interpretation is correct, then any claim by an R package developer 
to a license more restrictive than GPL would not be enforceable;  such 
claim would seem to violate the spirit, intent, and letter of the GPL.

	  A "boundary" case is provided by the "glmmADMB" package.  As I read 
the GPL, this package must operate under GPL.  This means that if anyone 
wants their source code, the authors of that package are required to 
give it to them.  I just noticed that the version of "glmmADMB" that I 
downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a "src" subdirectory.  This 
surprises me, given the comment on "http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml" 
that "we generally do not accept submissions of precompiled binaries". 
That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it.  Rather, 
it seems to say that Otter Research (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who 
distribute more general "AD Model Builder" software, could be required 
to make freely available source code for all the binaries they use. 
This should be fairly easy for them, because their "AD Model Builder" 
produces C++ code, which they could easily include in a "src" 
subdirectory of their package.  The GPL would NOT require them to 
distribute source code for the "AD Model Builder" itself, since that has 
an independent existence.

	  If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like to know.

	  Best Wishes,
	  Spencer Graves
Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
Gavin Simpson
#
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:43 -0700, Spencer Graves wrote:
{I cleared the recipients list out as this would have required moderator
intervention before getting through}

IANAL [1] but AFAICS this is referring to the source for R itself, not
code written in the R language. Therefore, glmmADMB would not be
violating the GPL as it is not releasing the source for R (or parts
thereof) under a different or more restrictive licence. The authors of
glmmADMB are free to choose their own licensing terms for their
software, and they appear to have licenced the linking R code under the
GPL. However, they are not required to release their ADMB software under
the GPL or provide the source code, because it doesn't include GPL
software as an integral part.

Again, IANAL and may have got this all wrong - happy to be corrected -
but that is my understanding...

G

[1] I Am Not A Lawyer
-- 
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
 *Note new Address and Fax and Telephone numbers from 10th April 2006*
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
Gavin Simpson                     [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522
ECRC                              [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565
UCL Department of Geography
Pearson Building                  [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk
Gower Street
London, UK                        [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/cv/
WC1E 6BT                          [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
Patrick Burns
# 
It is my understanding that interpreted code is
considered to be data and hence not able to be
legally restricted in the same way that compiled
code can be.

Patrick Burns
patrick at burns-stat.com
+44 (0)20 8525 0696
http://www.burns-stat.com
(home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
Gavin Simpson wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Berwin A Turlach
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
G'day Spencer,

            

      
      
      
    

        
SG> I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to me any code written
    SG> in R is arguably "derived from" R.
IANAL either, and I long since stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss in
which the interpretation of the various licences are regularly
discussed.

    SG> Even if R code were not "derived from" R, I don't see how it
    SG> could "reasonably be considered independent" of R.
R is one implementation of the S language.  If the R code works
without modification under S-PLUS (another implementation), then I
believe you can argue that it is independent of R.  

On the user level, it might well be the case that most commands work
in R and S-PLUS, but on the package developer lever there are enough
differences that typically the same code does not work on both, R and
S-PLUS, and that you have to make small adjustments depending on the
package.  If all R specific code is within "if(is.R())" constructs
(and likewise for all S-PLUS specific code), then you can probably
still argue independence.

It might become trickier if you handle the R/S-PLUS specific code
externally via Perl/Python/??? scripts and provide files with
(slightly) different code for the R package and the S-PLUS package.
In this case the R code for the R package is presumably derived from R
and has to be put under the GPL.

A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd
code in S-PLUS.  At some point, I got the impression that according to
the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code
(in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into
S-PLUS by the R code.  My understanding was that in that moment a
product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package.
For this reason I started to use the LGPL for S-PLUS packages that I
put on statlib.  I noticed that when these packages were ported to R,
the licence was changed to GPL, but that is o.k. and allowed by the
LGPL.  I guess this question will soon become more interesting again
since there have been e-mails to this mailing list that S-PLUS wants
to become more compatible to R so that packages developed for R can be
easily used (ported?) to S-PLUS.  I guess the guys in Insightful have
to be very careful on how they do that... :)

    SG> A "boundary" case is provided by the "glmmADMB" package.  As I
    SG> read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL.
According to the DESCRIPTION file (at least the 0.3 version for linux)
it does.

    SG> This means that if anyone wants their source code, the authors
    SG> of that package are required to give it to them.
I agree, but isn't it all there?  Or are you talking about the files
in the (inst/)admb directory?  The authors of that package should
probably write somewhere tht the files in that directory are not under
the GPL and everything would be fine.

    SG> I just noticed that the version of "glmmADMB" that I
    SG> downloaded 3/14/2006 does NOT contain a "src" subdirectory.
    SG> This surprises me, given the comment on
    SG> "http://cran.fhcrc.org/banner.shtml" that "we generally do not
    SG> accept submissions of precompiled binaries".
But from where die you download it?  I cannot see it on CRAN.  I found
it on the web-site of Otter Research and, presumably, they are free to
distribute packages that contain precompiled binaries.

    SG> That is, however, not required by the GPL, as I understand it.
    SG> Rather, it seems to say that Otter Research
    SG> (http://www.otter-rsch.com/), who distribute more general "AD
    SG> Model Builder" software, could be required to make freely
    SG> available source code for all the binaries they use.  This
    SG> should be fairly easy for them, because their "AD Model
    SG> Builder" produces C++ code, which they could easily include in
    SG> a "src" subdirectory of their package.  The GPL would NOT
    SG> require them to distribute source code for the "AD Model
    SG> Builder" itself, since that has an independent existence.
I definitely agree to the latter.  But from a quick look at the R code
it seems to me that this packge does not dynamically link any code
into R.  Rather, it seems that the communication with the precompiled
binaries are via calls to "system()" and communications via files
written into a temporary directory.  So while the C++ code could be
made available in the "src" subdirectory, I don't see why the GPL
would require them to do so.  Those binaries seem to be also
stand-alone and independent.  You can probably reverse-engineer the R
code to see how you could use them without R.

    SG> If anyone has any evidence contradicting the above, I'd like
    SG> to know.
I guess the above indicates that I have partly a different
interpretation than you have.  But, as I said,  I am not a lawyer.
And as the German proverb goes "Wo kein Klaeger ist, ist auch kein
Richter"---which means that you will probably only get definite
answers to these licences questions by testing them in court.  Good
luck if you choose to do so. :-)

Cheers,

        Berwin

========================== Full address ============================
Berwin A Turlach                      Tel.: +61 (8) 6488 3338 (secr)   
School of Mathematics and Statistics        +61 (8) 6488 3383 (self)      
The University of Western Australia   FAX : +61 (8) 6488 1028
35 Stirling Highway                   
Crawley WA 6009                e-mail: berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au
Australia                        http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Brian Ripley
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Patrick Burns wrote:

        

            

      
      
      
    

        
Yes: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
for a clearcut opinion from FSF.

However, most R packages contain compiled code that is linked against R's 
headers and is dynamically linked into R, and that is a more contentious 
issue. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and especially

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

See also Q2.11 in the R FAQ, which says

`The R Core Team does not provide legal advice under any circumstances'

(including here).  The onus is on those distributing packages to ensure 
that they meet the requirements of R's GPL.

            

      
      
      
    

        

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Deepayan Sarkar
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 5/19/06, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at pdf.com> wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
This sort of question is inevitably answered in the GPL FAQ (which is
intended for the non-lawyers among us, unlike the GPL):

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

My personal feeling has been that very few people on the R lists
understand the GPL, so I would not recommend posts here as a source of
knowledge on the matter :-)

Deepayan

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Brian Ripley
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were required to release 
it under GPL (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not, 
given that communication is between processes and the R code is 
interpreted).

Rather, it is stated to be under GPL _but_ there is no source code offer 
for the executables (and the GPL FAQ says that for anonymous FTP it should 
be downloadable via the same site, and the principles apply equally to 
HTTP sites).  As the executables are not for my normal OS and I would like 
to exercise my freedom to try the GPLed code, I have requested the sources 
from the package maintainer.

Once again, the GPL FAQ and its references, 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, are a more informed source than 
mailing lists.  If you think you understand it, try the exam at

http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi

(cheaper than testing in court).

        
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Berwin A Turlach wrote:

        

            

      
      
      
    

        

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Deepayan Sarkar
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 5/20/06, Berwin A Turlach <berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, it
governs distribution. Specifically,

<quote>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted...</quote>

Distribution of source is fairly straightforward (and it's perfectly
fine for you to distribute source on statlib under the GPL). Things
become more interesting when any one (e.g. Insightful) distributes
binaries (of a package/chapter in R/S, say) under the GPL, because
they are required by the GPL to supply (upon request) not only the
'source' (of the package or chapter), but also all the tools required
to reproduce the binary version from the source. I'm not sure how this
works in S-PLUS, but in R it would mean everything needed to do an R
CMD INSTALL.

There's a standard exception for this in the GPL, namely, you don't
need to supply <quote>anything that is normally distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
runs</quote>. S-PLUS would certainly not qualify among these. However,
the original author can add an exception to the license specifically
for S-PLUS, as noted in

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

            

      
      
      
    

        
Deepayan

  
    
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Berwin A Turlach
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
G'day Brian,

            

      
      
      
    

        
BDR> The issue in the glmmADMB example is not if they were
    BDR> required to release it under GPL
I should probably bow to your superior command of the English language
and trust that you can interpret Spencer's questions much better than
I, but I was addressing, amongst other things, the following comment:
    SG> A "boundary" case is provided by the "glmmADMB" package.  As I
    SG> read the GPL, this package must operate under GPL.
which to me seems to ask exactly about this issue.

    BDR> (my reading from the GPL FAQ is that they probably were not,
    BDR> given that communication is between processes and the R code
    BDR> is interpreted).
So, it seems we agree. :) (Though for different reasons)

    BDR> Rather, it is stated to be under GPL
Indeed, and I noted so.  Furthermore, I thought it was rather
pointless to confirm that under the licence of the package as it is
stated at the moment they would actually be required to provide the
source code of the binaries.  My apologies for not doing a thorough
discussion of all possible scenarios.  I just pointed out that if the
developers of this package do not want to provide the source code for
these binaries, they should probably state another licence for them in
the DESCRIPTION file and, since the binaries are not loaded
dynamically, they would not be obliged to release the source code;
a statement that you seem to agree to.  

    BDR> [...]  As the executables are not for my normal OS and I
    BDR> would like to exercise my freedom to try the GPLed code, I
    BDR> have requested the sources from the package maintainer.
Good luck. :)

    BDR> Once again, the GPL FAQ and its references,
    BDR> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, are a more informed
    BDR> source than mailing lists.  If you think you understand it,
    BDR> try the exam at

    BDR> http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi

    BDR> (cheaper than testing in court).
Well, if you read this material, you get the opinions of the FSF on
these matters, other people might have other opinions/interpretations.
If you read the material really careful, you will notice that there is
one point, namely what exactly "constitutes combining two parts into
one program", for which even the FSF concedes that it "is a legal
question, which ultimately judges will decide".  And it is exactly
this point which often raises discussions about the GPL, e.g. (parts
of) the current discussion.  Luckily, the GPL is very well written and
so far nobody with deep enough pockets was found who really wanted to
have a definite answer to this question.

Cheers,

        Berwin

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Berwin A Turlach
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
G'day Deepayan,

            

      
      
      
    

        
DS> A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use,
    DS> it governs distribution. Specifically,
As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago, but if I
remember correctly sometimes in the (early?) '90s the following case
was discussed.  

A company made a binary module available for download and gave the
instructions "go to the FSF site (or a mirror), download version X.Y.Z
of program U and compile it with these options, then link our module
and start the program, now you can use these features of ours and are
in business".  (Remember, these were the days when most "free"
software was only available in .tar.gz form, people were used to
compile their own software and slackware was the dominant (only?)
linux distribution, no .rpm or .deb files.)

Note also that they did not distribute any GPL code, they said go and
get it.  As far as I remember, they were told by the FSF that they
cannot do this and had to stop.  And, IIRC, the argument was that
whether they did the linking or let the end user do the linking was
the same and, hence, the GPL was violated.

But it is quite possible that the argument was based on other sections
of the GPL.  And, obviously, there must be some mechanism in the GPL
that prohibits the above procedure, otherwise it would be very easy to
circumvent the GPL.  (This idea of circumventing the GPL was regularly
floated on gnu.misc.discuss while I followed it.)

Cheers,

        Berwin

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Deepayan Sarkar
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach <berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
I'll readily concede that my interpretation may be flawed, but this
example doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. This binary module
was clearly (in the opinion of the FSF) a derivative work of something
that was GPL, and hence the company was violating the GPL by
distributing the binary module under a license other than the GPL.
Whether it was truly a derivative work (which would depend on how the
'linking' was done) may be in contention, but that's not the issue
here. Also, as far as I can tell, your description applies to the
situation with Nvidia's binary kernel drivers for the Linux kernel
(which is GPL and not LGPL AFAIK), which is obviously tolerated, so
there must have been some other nuances.

In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we were
originally discussing: there one wants to distribute a GPL-d module
that possibly links into a proprietary system. As far as I can tell,
the example you quoted above has no relevance in this situation.

-Deepayan

            

      
      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Berwin A Turlach
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
G'day Deepayan,

            

      
      
      
    

        

        
DS> On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach <berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

        
DS> A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use,
    DS> it governs distribution. Specifically,
    >> As I said, I stopped reading gnu.misc.discuss long time ago,
    >> but if I remember correctly sometimes in the (early?) '90s the
    >> following case was discussed.
    >> 
    >> A company made a binary module available for download and gave
    >> the instructions "go to the FSF site (or a mirror), download
    >> version X.Y.Z of program U and compile it with these options,
    >> then link our module and start the program, now you can use
    >> these features of ours and are in business".  (Remember, these
    >> were the days when most "free" software was only available in
    >> .tar.gz form, people were used to compile their own software
    >> and slackware was the dominant (only?)  linux distribution, no
    >> .rpm or .deb files.)
    >> 
    >> Note also that they did not distribute any GPL code, they said
    >> go and get it.  As far as I remember, they were told by the FSF
    >> that they cannot do this and had to stop.  And, IIRC, the
    >> argument was that whether they did the linking or let the end
    >> user do the linking was the same and, hence, the GPL was
    >> violated.

    DS> I'll readily concede that my interpretation may be flawed, but
    DS> this example doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. This
    DS> binary module was clearly (in the opinion of the FSF) a
    DS> derivative work of something that was GPL, and hence the
    DS> company was violating the GPL by distributing the binary
    DS> module under a license other than the GPL.
Well, the question is whether the binary module is a derivative work.
Note, the GPL makes four (4) references to derivatives and derivative
work.   The one most relevant in this discussion is probably the one
in paragraph 0.:
 
        [...] The "Program", below, refers to any such program or
        work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the
        Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to
        say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either
        verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
        language. [...]

So they are actually referring to copyright law to define what a
derivative work is, and this law might be different in different
countries.  Thus, whether you violate the GPL or not may well depend
on where you are located.  

Another question is when does the work becomes a derived work?  I
believe few will disagree that at the moment the two components are
dynamically linked, a derivative work is produced.  Whether something
is a derivative work before the linking, is a debatable question.

But, as I wanted to illustrate with this example, even if you make the
user do the linking, in that moment a product is created that violates
the GPL and the user looses all rights to the GPL part of this new
product (at least that is may understanding).  Hence, a user can
(be made to) violate the GPL.

    DS> Also, as far as I can tell, your description applies to the
    DS> situation with Nvidia's binary kernel drivers for the Linux
    DS> kernel (which is GPL and not LGPL AFAIK),
A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the linux
kernel is developed under the GPL.  There are actually reports that
the developers are currently discussing to move to GPL 3 (a bit
strange, since GPL 3 is, AFAIK, open to discussion but not yet
released) and many of them wanting to stick with GPL 2.  (Another
thing I find strange, because given the standard clause, one can take
GPL 2 code, modify it and then release the new version under GPL 3 [or
later].) 

    DS> which is obviously tolerated, so there must have been some
    DS> other nuances.
It is, but there are problems.  I have computers with an Nvidia card
and run Debian.  Quite often, when the kernel image pacakge is updated
(even if the same version numbers are kept!), my system breaks and
until I recompile the interface to the Nvidia binaries, I cannot use
X.  Interfacing proprietary binary modules to linux seems to be a
perennial problem.

Recently (0.5-1 year ago), there were some reports on relevant sites
that somebody who was providing support for binary drivers of some
digital camera got very upset with how it was made harder and harder
for him to provide this support.  And when some code was removed from
the kernel which made it possible for him to provide the support (and
the argument for the removal was that the code only serves this
purpose), he really spit the dummy and asked that his code and any
other code that he had provided to the linux kernel be removed.  As
far as I remember, Linus complied but a huge discussion ensued on
whether he was actully allowed to withdraw all his code.  I did not
follow this incidence though to see how it was eventually resolved.

    DS> In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we
    DS> were originally discussing: there one wants to distribute a
    DS> GPL-d module that possibly links into a proprietary system. As
    DS> far as I can tell, the example you quoted above has no
    DS> relevance in this situation.
First, the e-mail that you are answering to was written in reply to
your e-mail claiming that a user cannot violate the GPL.  IMO, to make
this statement true, you have to be careful in how you define user.
The e-mail was not written as a reply or input to Spencer's e-mail.

Secondly, I have admitted already on this list, and I am happy to
admit it again, that English is my second language.  But I am quite
sure that my command of English is not so bad that I completely
misunderstand the point of a discussion.  So I have to wonder to what
you are referring to as "the situation we were originally discussing".
For my part, Spencer was asking (among other things) for opinions on
his interpretation of the GPL with regard to the "glmmADMB" package.
This package provides binaries that are called (not even linked) from
a GPL-d program.  And I offered Spencer some of my thoughts on this
subject.  There is nothing in the "glmmADMB" package (as far as I can
tell) which links into a proprietary system, I did not see anything in
Spencer's e-mail that was asking about the scenario that you describe
and I did not comment on such a scenario.

Best wishes,

        Berwin

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Deepayan Sarkar
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Hi,

let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: I was responding to
the following paragraph in your reply to Spencer:

<Berwin>
A question that always interested me was whether you can used GPL'd
code in S-PLUS.  At some point, I got the impression that according to
the GPL the user would violate the GPL if a package contained GPL code
(in particular C and/or FORTRAN code) that was dynamically linked into
S-PLUS by the R code.  My understanding was that in that moment a
product was created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your package.
</Berwin>

to which I replied that

<Deepayan>
A user can never violate the GPL. The GPL does not govern use, it
governs distribution.
</Deepayan>

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your
contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a non-GPL
component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him by the GPL to
the GPL-d part P. Let's assume this is true. All that means is that
the user has lost his rights to "copy, modify and redistribute" P. He
does NOT lose the rights to use P. To violate the GPL, he has to copy,
modify or distribute P (which are illegal without the rights granted
by the GPL), at which point he no longer remains a mere user. This is
what I meant when I said that "a user can never violate the GPL".
Sorry for any confusion.

A few other comments below...

        
On 5/21/06, Berwin A Turlach <berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

        

            

      
      
      
    

        
Linux is under GPL2, and not "GPL2 or later". As far as I know,
there's no real discussion; Linus has said he doesn't like (the
intents of) GPL3, and it's virtually impossible anyway to track down
all copyright holders and get their permission to change the license.

            

      
      
      
    

        
I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of GPL'd
code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I was saying, that
situation is the opposite of the one in your example.

Deepayan

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Berwin A Turlach
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
G'day Deepayan,

            

      
      
      
    

        
DS> let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...]
Sound like a perfect summary. :)

    DS> As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
    DS> your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a
    DS> non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him
    DS> by the GPL to the GPL-d part P.
I don't think that I said this explicitly, but I can see how what I
said can be interpreted in such a way.  The point is rather that at
the moment component P and Q are linked (and I perhaps carelessly
assumed that the user was doing this) a product is produced that
should be completely under the GPL.  Obviously it is not.  Hence, the
status of this linked product, and whether it can be used by anybody,
is an open question.  And the answer is probably given by the
copyright laws (and others?) of the country in the linking happens.  


    DS> Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has
    DS> lost his rights to "copy, modify and redistribute" P. He does
    DS> NOT lose the rights to use P.
I agree with you on this.  Probably I was to terse in my writing and
produced misunderstandings.  I never intended to say something about
the rights that the user has with regards to P alone.  My comments
were directed towards the linked product P+Q.  In particular, it is
not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without
violating copyright laws. 

Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted:
        
         My understanding was that in that moment a product was
         created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
         user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your
         package.

Should perhaps better be formulated as:

         My understanding was that in that moment a product was
         created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the
         person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is
         not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product.

    >> A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the
    >> linux kernel is developed under the GPL.  [...]
    DS> Linux is under GPL2, and not "GPL2 or later". [...]
Oh, I wasn't aware that they did not use the typical(?) "or later"
phrase.  Thanks for pointing this out and I note that we both agree
that the linux kernel is definitely not under LGPL.

    DS> In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we
    DS> were originally discussing: [...]
    >> [...]  So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as "the
    >> situation we were originally discussing".

    DS> I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of
    DS> GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I
    DS> was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your
    DS> example.
O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at
Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail.  Now I am with you.

Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example
discussed in gnu.misc.discuss.  From an abstract point of view the
situations are the same.  You make someone else link a GPL product
with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would
have to be under the GPL but is not.  Hence, the derived work has a
legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has
to right to use it.  

The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people
provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software
from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the
combined product.  

As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the
situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and
ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then use
the combined product.

If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be
acceptable either.  Except that in the first scenario there is a clear
intend of circumventing the GPL.  But I was not sure whether such kind
of intent makes any difference.  Thus, to avoid all these problems I
decided to rather use the LGPL since that licence definitely seemed to
allow both.  

Hope this clarifies some of my comments.

Cheers,

        Berwin

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Deepayan Sarkar
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 5/22/06, Berwin A Turlach <berwin at maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

        
[...]

            

      
      
      
    

        
I think you are still missing the point. The act of creating a
derivative work is NOT governed by the GPL, so it cannot possibly by
itself violate the GPL. The question of violation only applies when
the creator of this derivative work wishes to _distribute_ it. This is
like me writing a book that no one else ever reads; it doesn't matter
if I have plagiarized huge parts of it. This point is not as academic
as you might think. It is well known that Google uses a customized
version of Linux for their servers; however, they do not distribute
this customized version, and hence are under no obligation to provide
the changes (and they do not, in fact). This is NOT a violation of the
GPL.

            

      
      
      
    

        
That's your choice, but the situations are not symmetric, and quite
deliberately so. The FSF's plan was not to produce a completely
independent and fully functional 'GNU system' at once (which would be
unrealistic), but rather produce replacements of UNIX tools one by
one. It was entirely necessary to allow these new versions to operate
within the older, proprietary system. In fact, GCC was not the first
piece of software released under the GPL, and until then the only way
to use GPL software was to compile them using a non-free compiler.
This is enabled by means of exceptions to the GPL, as described in

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

(which I have already referred to once before).

Deepayan