[R] How can you buy R?

[Berwin A Turlach]

G'day Deepayan,

>>>>> "DS" == Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> writes:

    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