On 13-01-24 12:22 PM, Christian Sigg wrote:
I intend to submit a newly developed package to CRAN (to be licensed under the
GPL), which prompted me to re-read the GPL FAQ. The following section caught my
attention:
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean
programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no.
(...)
Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with
many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes.
These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked
together.
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way,
regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the
combined Perl or Java program will run on.
(from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL)
My understanding of this section is the following:
1. If I develop and distribute an R package which depends on another package
that is released under the GPL, I have to release my package in a
GPL-compatible way.
2. Given that R itself is distributed as a set of base packages (released under the GPL),
and a distinction between making use of the R "language" and making use of
functionality provided by the base packages seem impossible, the above section could also
imply that it is not possible at all to release R code under a license that is not
GPL-compatible.
Yet, there exist several packages on CRAN which seem to violate the GPL, according to the
FSF interpretation quoted above. For example, the SDDA package prohibits commercial use
of the package (a restriction that is incompatible with the GPL), but states an explicit
dependency on the MASS package (which is not a "base" package and released
under the GPL). Furthermore, several packages also prohibit commercial use, but list an
explicit dependency on the methods package (e.g. gpclib, isa2, optmatch).
As all of these packages are on CRAN, and at least one author is also a core R
contributor (Duncan Murdoch for gpclib), I assume that the CRAN maintainers
and/or the R Foundation do not consider these packages to violate the GPL, and
therefore also do not agree with the FSF interpretation of the GPL quoted above
(provided that they share my understanding of the quote). On the other hand, R
is an official part of the FSF GNU project, so I would expect the R Foundation
to agree with GNU policy in general.
I have not found a statement by the CRAN maintainers and/or the R Foundation
that addresses this issue (e.g. it is neither addressed in doc/COPYRIGHTS nor
the R FAQ nor the CRAN repository policy). I have also searched the archives
and there are at least three references to the above quoted section of the GPL
FAQ on R-devel:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2011-August/061907.html
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-April/053159.html
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2006-September/042715.html
and one reference on R-help:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-November/179846.html
While several list members provide their personal opinion on the matter, I
could not find any statement that could be considered the agreed upon position
of the CRAN maintainers and/or the R Foundation. The closest I could find are
several replies by Duncan Murdoch where he writes that a package author is free
in his choice of license if no actual copying of GPLed code takes place
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2006-September/042716.html
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2010-June/240945.html
and where he takes a critical stand against the quoted FSF interpretation of
the GPL:
I don't think my point contradicts the FSF interpretation. I think they
were talking about using GPL modules in a program you distribute, with
the implication that you are distributing the modules along with your
program. However, I could be wrong. If I am wrong and the FSF agrees
with your strong interpretation, then I do think they are wrong.
If you write something that incorporates nothing of mine, I can't see
how my copyright could influence you at all. If a user needs my code to
make yours useful, I don't see how any of that changes. The GPL is
quite clear that it doesn't restrict people in how they use the code, it
just gives them rights to copy it (possibly in a modified form, if they
follow the rules).
By your line of reasoning (which I
don't agree with), if you write an R script, making use of features of R
that are not present in other S dialects, then the only way to make it
work would be to use R. So if you want to distribute it, you would need
to GPL it. So lots of the R packages on CRAN that do not have GPL
compatible licenses would be in violation of the GPL, and since CRAN is
distributing them, CRAN is in violation of the GPL. That's nonsense.
(from https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-November/179908.html)
and an email by Prof. Leisch
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-April/053141.html
where he mentions ongoing discussions in R Core and the R Foundation. However,
these discussions might have only considered Revolution Analytic's ParallelR
(the main topic of that thread), and I could not find a follow-up email where
the result of that discussion was published.
Did the CRAN maintainers and the R Foundation publish an agreed upon position
on the FSF interpretation of the GPL quoted above, and I simply missed it? If
yes, could it be added to the R FAQ and/or the CRAN repository policy, such
that it is easier to find? If not, may I kindly ask them to explain their
position?
No, CRAN and the R Foundation have not published that. I don't think
either group will publish a position. You can guess the current beliefs
of the folks at CRAN by seeing what they do (under the reasonable
assumption that they do not think they are doing anything illegal), but
those beliefs might change. The R Foundation does almost nothing, so
it's a little more inscrutable.
Note that I am not asking for legal advice,
You should be. If you really want to know whether they are using your
code illegally, or about whether your proposed use of other peoples code
is legal, you really should get legal advice.
> nor am I advocating for a specific change of the current practices of
the R project.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
