[R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Avraham Adler]

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.

Avi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp <rmsharp using me.com> wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> 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
> wording.
>
> 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
> import.
>
> Mark
> 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
> silent'
> >>
> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is
> licensed
> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
> corporations
> >> 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 <
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]