This is a complex area that is best left to lawyers. But even thanks to free software (FSF), a strict interpretation of the GPL, such a thing is allowed. S is a programming language, and R is an interpreter of this language. The FSF Foundation then claims that the program is just data regarding the translator and, therefore, is a separate work (in terms of copyright). Therefore, it is not GPL bound. see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
The core R team agrees with this and at some point released an expression about R-dev that alternative licenses for R packages are allowed. In fact, on CRAN you will see a wide range of licensing terms, some of which are not βfreeβ (that is, optmatch).
Another thing is if Revolution R packages depend on other (non-basic) packages released under the GPL (I donβt know if they do this). The FSF will argue that the packages will be bound by the GPL, but other lawyers will not agree. I asked Stallman on UseR! that he is likely to be tested in court in the near future, which is the only way to resolve this kind of thing, and he said no.
Ian fellows
source share