[R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette
jdnewm|| @end|ng |rom dcn@d@v|@@c@@u@
Wed Jun 3 02:25:25 CEST 2020
"Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person using the term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want you to take their contributions out of circulation by using it as the foundation of your proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from scratch or find some other code that isn't GPL.
Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to steal something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen. Please refrain from being inflammatory.
On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler <avraham.adler using gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral
>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
>> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has
>> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and
>> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This
>> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google
>> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages
>> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
>> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for
>> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it
>> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly
>> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are
>> 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
>> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies
>> avoid them?
>> > I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where
>> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written
>> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. I get several
>> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching". FUD,
>> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk"
>> 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
>> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
>> >> Wittgenstein: 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must
>> >> 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
>> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could
>> have the
>> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R
>> >> 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 my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the R-package-devel