how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD?
Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
derivative work
Points taken. It may not be derivation in the sense of modification, more in
the sense of using R as a library :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (paragraphs 3
and 4 in particular)
R, and base functions written in R, are GPL not LGPL. In the context of the
FAQ above, do your packages use base functions ?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
The first R FAQ (1.1) states that R is released under GPL version 2 or any
later version.
At the end of the GPL (both v2 and v3) it says "This General Public License
does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If
your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to
permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what
you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this
License."
there are certainly many existing R packages with non-free/non-open
licenses
They could be in breach too. The fact their licenses are like that does not
in itself mean they are compliant with the GPL. R FAQ 2.11 defers to legal
counsel - it mentions such licenses but it states no opinion about them as
far as my reading goes. At least the source code of those packages is
available for download. REvolution appear to be going one step further i.e.
bundling R with their proprietary packages and selling the work as a whole.
Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the
situation please ? If in your opinion it is all fine what people are
doing, why not release R under the LGPL for clarity ?
Regards, Matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M Smith" <da...@revolution-computing.com>
To: "Matthew Dowle" <mdo...@mdowle.plus.com>
Cc: "Patrick Shields" <p...@revolution-computing.com>;
<r-devel@r-project.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks,
Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source
of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR
is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like
any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were
written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick),
and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project.
In retrospect, the name ParallelR may be somewhat confusing in this sense...
# David Smith
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Patrick Shields
<p...@revolution-computing.com> wrote:
I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I
just
wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found
in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase
"derived works" is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include
are
R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text
documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R
code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including
these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL?
Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code
was
a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I
didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more
use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD
software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle
<mdo...@mdowle.plus.com>wrote:
Dear R-devel,
REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R
Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php
Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ?
Below is the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum.
mdowle > It appears that ParallelR (packages foreach and iterators) is
only available bundled with the Enterprise edition. Since R is GPL, and
ParallelR is derived from R, should ParallelR not also be GPL? Regards,
Matthew
revolution > Hello Matthew, ParallelR consists of both proprietary and
GPL
packages. The randomForest and snow libraries GPL licensed, whereas the
other libraries we include have a commercial license(including 'foreach'
and
'iterators'). Stephen Weller
revolution > I wanted to expand on Stephen's reply. ParallelR is a suite
of
R packages, and it is well established that packages can be under a
difference license than R itself (i.e. not the GPL). For example, package
MCE is licensed under BSD, RColorBrewer is licensed under Apache, most of
Bioconductor is under the Artistic license and some are under completely
unique licenses (e.g. mclust). REvolution Computing developed all of the
code in ParallelR (except for the bundled GPL packages Stephen mentions),
and we decided to release it under our own license in REvolution R
Enterprise.
That said, we do already release components of parallelR, such as the
underlying engine, Networkspaces (also written by REvolution Computing)
under an open source licence. Also, we are likely to release some other
components including foreach and iterators, to CRAN soon.
David Smith
Director of Community, REvolution Computing
mdowle > The examples you give (MCE, RColorBrewer, Bioconductor) are all
available for free including the source code. Their licenses have been
approved by the FSF. Free software and open source are the terms of work
derived from GPL licensed software. REvolution's packages 'foreach' and
'iterators' are neither free or open source. Can you provide a precedent
for proprietary closed-source packages for R ? Is your policy approved by
the FSF ?
I don't object to REvolution. I am a fan of you making money from
training
courses, consultancy, support and binaries. These are all permitted by
the
GPL. However the GPL does not allow you to distribute work derived from R
which is either closed source or non-free.
R is GPL, not LGPL.
The above is my personal understanding. I am now posting to r-devel to
check, feel free to join the public debate there.
Regards, Matthew
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Pat Shields
Software Engineer
REvolution Computing
One Century Tower | 265 Church Street, Suite 1006
New Haven, CT 06510
P: 203-777-7442 x250 | www.revolution-computing.com
Check out our upcoming events schedule at
www.revolution-computing.com/events
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
David M Smith <da...@revolution-computing.com>
Director of Community, REvolution Computing www.revolution-computing.com
Tel: +1 (206) 577-4778 x3203 (San Francisco, USA)
Check out our upcoming events schedule at
www.revolution-computing.com/events
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
