[R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette
@vr@h@m@@d|er @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Wed Jun 3 01:49:25 CEST 2020
IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it infects
anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something like
the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral copyleft
and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp <rmsharp using me.com> wrote:
> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the topic.
> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has listed
> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and cannot
> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This include
> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google Search
> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages dynamically as
> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for their
> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it is
> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly cautious
> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are of no
> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> San Antonio, TX 78251
> mobile: 210-218-2868
> rmsharp using me.com
> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
> spencer.graves using effectivedefense.org> wrote:
> > Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the
> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to
> avoid them?
> > I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost
> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written from
> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. I get several emails a
> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching". FUD, vandalism,
> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk" page
> associated with each article, where the world is invited to provide
> credible source(s).
> > Spencer Graves
> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in
> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
> >> Wittgenstein: 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain
> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is
> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.
> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you
> have the
> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?
> >> Dirk
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-package-devel using r-project.org <mailto:R-package-devel using r-project.org>
> mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel <
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
Sent from Gmail Mobile
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
More information about the R-package-devel