4 ms·

According to [1] R "will be run inside a sandbox process within SQL Server itself". If that's correct then there's not much to it. MS includes a link somewher

According to [1] R "will be run inside a sandbox process within SQL Server itself". If that's correct then there's not much to it. MS includes a link somewhere saying "Go here for the R source code." As far as CRAN goes, the licenses of the packages there have nothing to do with the license of the R implementations they run on. Even if MS has their own implementation of R, it should be able to download and run packages from CRAN without MS having to worry about it. [1] http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2015/05/r-in-sql-server.html http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2015/05/r-in-sql-server....

DannyBee 11y ago
" If that's correct then there's not much to it." The FSF would beg to differ the last time i looked, depending on the situation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF is the closest to their position on this. Basically, if you can function call into R from SQL/etc, and it's just not just a subprocess completely independent, their view is that you'd have to GPL the main process.
- tormeh 11y ago
  That's a very strict position to take. So using a GPL'd library in my code means my code is now GPL as well? I understand now why many companies blanket ban GPL software.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    It's not very strict; it's the raison d'être of the GPL. The LGPL was written precisely to allow libraries without copyleft. A big chunk of CRAN is library-based and depends on a binary interface to R, and is GPL'ed. The FSF also does not think that whether the GPL'ed program is a separate process or not determines whether the bundle as a whole is GPL'ed or not. In their opinion, if you bundle the whole thing and it acts as a whole, and the communication between the GPL'ed components and the non-free parts are "intimate enough"[1], then the whole bundle is copylefted. It seems to me that bundling R with SQL server and tightly coupling the two, even across different processes, could well qualify. Of course, if the R developers do not want to enforce their copyleft, none of this matters. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
  - belorn 11y ago
    Is it? If I go and download the unreal engine to build a game, I got to pay 5% of gross revenue for using that in a commercially sold game. If I go to Flickr and download some pictures, I often got to pay the photographer for including it in commercial products. GPL like any other software licenses defines the terms when authorization is granted, and instead of asking money it only request that you share and share alike the source code. Some people find that to be a fair concept, while others prefer to spend money and time to create their own implementation. Depending on the level of market competition, business models, and revenue streams reimplementing existing software can be valid but in most times its not.
  - lmm 11y ago
    > So using a GPL'd library in my code means my code is now GPL as well? Yes, that's always been the whole point of the GPL. (The LGPL exists if you want to release your library without that requirement)
- jlarocco 11y ago
  My interpretation was that SQL Server would be more or less forking an R process and passing it the script as an argument. It seems hard to believe that would be forbidden by the GPL.

DannyBee 11y ago

" If that's correct then there's not much to it." The FSF would beg to differ the last time i looked, depending on the situation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF is the closest to their position on this. Basically, if you can function call into R from SQL/etc, and it's just not just a subprocess completely independent, their view is that you'd have to GPL the main process.

tormeh 11y ago
That's a very strict position to take. So using a GPL'd library in my code means my code is now GPL as well? I understand now why many companies blanket ban GPL software.
- jordigh 11y ago
  It's not very strict; it's the raison d'être of the GPL. The LGPL was written precisely to allow libraries without copyleft. A big chunk of CRAN is library-based and depends on a binary interface to R, and is GPL'ed. The FSF also does not think that whether the GPL'ed program is a separate process or not determines whether the bundle as a whole is GPL'ed or not. In their opinion, if you bundle the whole thing and it acts as a whole, and the communication between the GPL'ed components and the non-free parts are "intimate enough"[1], then the whole bundle is copylefted. It seems to me that bundling R with SQL server and tightly coupling the two, even across different processes, could well qualify. Of course, if the R developers do not want to enforce their copyleft, none of this matters. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
- belorn 11y ago
  Is it? If I go and download the unreal engine to build a game, I got to pay 5% of gross revenue for using that in a commercially sold game. If I go to Flickr and download some pictures, I often got to pay the photographer for including it in commercial products. GPL like any other software licenses defines the terms when authorization is granted, and instead of asking money it only request that you share and share alike the source code. Some people find that to be a fair concept, while others prefer to spend money and time to create their own implementation. Depending on the level of market competition, business models, and revenue streams reimplementing existing software can be valid but in most times its not.
- lmm 11y ago
  > So using a GPL'd library in my code means my code is now GPL as well? Yes, that's always been the whole point of the GPL. (The LGPL exists if you want to release your library without that requirement)
jlarocco 11y ago
My interpretation was that SQL Server would be more or less forking an R process and passing it the script as an argument. It seems hard to believe that would be forbidden by the GPL.