On Apr 7, 2011, at 16:36 , Matthew Dowle wrote:
> Letting you know then that I just don't see how the first paragraph here :
> is compatible with clause 2(b) here :
> Perhaps somebody could explain why it is?
As I understand it, they believe that it falls under the "mere aggregation" exception at the end of sec.2, and they believe that their plugins are not "derived works", but add-ons. The legal hair-splitting is rather painful...
-- Peter Dalgaard Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Email: pd.mes_at_cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd_at_gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.Received on Thu 07 Apr 2011 - 15:00:45 GMT
Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by
the discipline of
statistics at the
University of Newcastle,
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 07 Apr 2011 - 15:20:29 GMT.
Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.
list of date sections of archive