3 ms·
I'm surprised that no one in this thread (or on the broader Internet, as far as I can tell from a cursory web search) has any information the status of this "Re
by StevePerkins 11y ago
I'm surprised that no one in this thread (or on the broader Internet, as far as I can tell from a cursory web search) has any information the status of this "Revolution R" package that Microsoft recently acquired.
Is it a clean-room reimplementation of R? (like the relationship between .NET and Mono) Or is it a "distribution" of R? (like the relationship between Debian and Ubuntu?)
Whether the R implementation here is non-GPL, or whether it actually is running in a "fork-and-exec" separate process, I'm sure that Microsoft has their bases covered. They know more than a thing or two about software licensing, and certainly wouldn't take any risks of subjecting their flagship enterprise database to the GPL.
However, I'm completely uncertain as to what the legal status of Microsoft's R implementation means in terms of libraries that one can use from CRAN (aren't many of those GPL'ed as well?).
For me, I work in the real world, where you're not allowed to touch the GPL with a 10-foot pole, so this is of idle curiosity only. I'm not sure if Microsoft is trying to appeal to academia here, or if it's just a P.R. move in general... but if they expect to sell this to business users, then they're going to have to put a LOT more effort into clarifying its legal status.
- jordigh 11y ago> I work in the real world I must work in the imaginary world, since we are allowed to use GPL'ed stuff at work. In fact, I got hired at my current job to improve GPL'ed stuff. And I don't work in academia. Whenever I hear stories about how big companies can't touch the GPL, I always call "bullshit". Of course they can; and in fact many large companies do. Some, sadly, are just full of inefficient bureaucracy that feeds their employees big fat lies about how the GPL will destroy us all.