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

[Jeff Newmiller]

The obvious answer is simply to refer to GPL. It isn't necessary to propagate a derogatory point of view by finding another word for an incorrect idea.  Try re-reading my previous words without trying to hold on to a flawed interpretation.

On June 2, 2020 5:33:56 PM PDT, Avraham Adler <avraham.adler using gmail.com> wrote:
>Apologies; my intent was not to disparage, but that is the term is used
>in
>the industry and in venues which discuss FLOSS because it reflects that
>the
>addition of one component with that kind of copyleft license causes the
>entire project to need that particular copyleft license. If there is a
>term
>which reflects that mechanism from a discipline other than biology,
>please let me know.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Avi
>
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM Jeff Newmiller
><jdnewmil using dcn.davis.ca.us>
>wrote:
>
>> "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
>> >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 Consu
>>
><https://www.google.com/maps/search/a+Scientist+and+Biomedical+Statistical+Consu?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> ltant
>> >> 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 my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
>>

-- 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.