Dear Marc The GPL FAQ section that I quoted addresses all the points that you raise:
> There are some questions that need to be answered, since these types of > questions have to be answered within specific contexts. For example: > > 1. Is your package "pure R" code and contains only code that you have written? The quoted section of the GLP FAQ concerns purely interpreted R code. Issues of authorship are not part of the argument, but they of course have to be fully resolved. > 2. Does your package contain code requiring compilation (eg. C, C++, FORTRAN) > that links against other GPL libraries, R or otherwise? See 1. > 3. Are you including any other source code, not written by you, that is GPL? No inclusion of third party source code, only making use of functionality of a GPLed R package. > If your package is "pure R" (no compiled code and no R code from someone else > that is GPL) and contains no linking (in the compiler sense of the term) to > R's libraries or the libraries of other GPL licensed code, you are free to > distribute your package under any license you wish and even restrict use. > Note that I am focusing on the GPL here and not other "looser" open source > licenses. > > The same applies if you include a DEPENDS line in your DESCRIPTION file, > where other GPL packages are listed. That has no implication for the > licensing of your package unless you are linking against libraries in the > other GPL packages. It is my understanding of the quoted GPL FAQ section that the FSF does not agree with this interpretation of the GPL. > The so-called viral part of the GPL largely comes into play when you link > against other GPL code or possibly embed other GPL code within yours and > distribute that product. In that case, your code, at least the part that > specifically links against other GPL libraries, would have to be licensed > under the GPL or a GPL compatible license as well. Albeit, even there, we are > talking about distribution, not use. You could develop a package for > "internal" use only, in which case, the license used is irrelevant. I provided examples of packages that are already published on CRAN, which are in violation of the GPL according to the FSF interpretation, provided I understood the GPL FAQ correctly. > There are non-GPL and non-GPL compatible packages on CRAN and this topic has > come up for [heated] discussion in the past. The CRAN maintainers have not > placed GPL or GPL compatible only restrictions on the packages on CRAN. That > there are such packages on CRAN is not a legal issue vis-a-vis the GPL, but a > philosophical one, which is where the heated discussions tend to arise from. I am aware of those discussions, and am not advocating for a change of the current practices of the CRAN maintainers. But I if the current practices of the R project are in conflict with the FSF interpretation of the GPL, they need to be addressed. Best regards, Christian ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
