Timeline for Using R packages in a commercial application
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @SebastianM.Müller No. The GPL specifies (IIRC, at least) that derivatives must be under the same license. | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | sebastianmm | Isn't it okay to publish one's derivative work using a "GPL compatible" license? | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @SebastianM.Müller Legally, it can't be. If you're not the author and you want to use GPL software, you must release your own software under GPL. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 21:32 | comment | added | sebastianmm | I see. However, I found some more occurrences from different authors, which makes be believe this dependency is treated differently. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 21:18 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @SebastianM.Müller If the author of both packages is the same person, then it's fine - they have the full copyright to both, and can do what they like. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 21:14 | comment | added | sebastianmm | Thanks a lot for your input. Frankly, I find it more likely that I misunderstood something here than Hadley Wickham having made a mistake. Perhaps it has to do with how R packages are distributed? Or with the fact that the author and maintainer of both packages is the same person? | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:27 | history | answered | ArtOfCode | CC BY-SA 3.0 |