On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Christian Sigg <christ...@sigg-iten.ch> wrote: > >> Dear Duncan >> >>> 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. >> >> Let me again quote parts of the GPL FAQ: >> >>> 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. >> >> The second paragraph (applied to R) says that if I use a GPL'd R package, I >> must release the program in a GPL-compatible way. It makes no mention of >> distributing the GPLed modules along with the program. >> >> I think that this FAQ entry precisely exists because in an interpreted >> environment, it is possible to make use of the functionality of a GPLed >> package without copying code (in source or binary form) from that package >> into my program (beyond the API calls), as it would happen in static >> linking. The last sentence of the first paragraph unambiguously asserts that >> calling functionality from an R package is equivalent to dynamic linking of >> my program with the package. >> >> The preceding entry of the GPL FAQ has this to say: >> >>> If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that >>> any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible >>> license? (#IfLibraryIsGPL) >>> >>> Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library. >> >> There exist several licenses which modify the GPL explicitly to allow for >> dynamic linking to a GPLed library without having to release the program >> under the GPL (e.g. LGPL, Classpath Licence, GCC Runtime Library Exception. >> The following section again states that dynamic linking implies that a >> program and the package become effectively a single program, which needs to >> be released under the GPL: >> >>> Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered >>> plug-in? (#NFUseGPLPlugins) >>> >>> (...) >>> >>> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls >>> to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single >>> program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and >>> the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program >>> must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, >>> and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is >>> distributed for use with these plug-ins. >> >> >> I see nothing in the FAQ which would indicate that these points were only >> valid if the GPLed R package is distributed along with my program. >> >> >>> 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). >> >> I think I understand your position, and personally applied the same >> reasoning when reading the GPL. But the above quoted sections unambiguously >> concern usage and dynamic linking, and make no mention of copying code. >> >>> 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. >> >> I already mentioned in my first email what I assume is the position of the >> CRAN maintainers and the R Foundation, i.e. that they believe that >> distributing non GPL-compatible packages which depend on GPL packages is not >> a violation of the GPL. But if my reading of the GPL FAQ has any merit, then >> the FSF has a different position. And because the R project is an official >> GNU project, the FSF interpretation of the GPL is important for the R >> project. A clarification of the position of the CRAN maintainers and the R >> Foundation would therefore be helpful. >> >> Prof. Leisch explicitly mentions that discussions concerning such issues >> (e.g. combining R with non-free functionality) are taking place, and that a >> common position is sought with the intent of publishing it: >> >>> Just a short clarification (by no means intended to stop the thread): >>> as you can imagine we are discussing the matter internally in R Core >>> and the Foundation, but there are different views and we want to >>> consolidate before we make a public statement. If all of us were of >>> the same opinion we would already have made one. >> >> >> >> >>>> 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. >> >> This issue has been brought up several times, making it a frequently asked >> question (for some definitions of frequently :-). A clarification of the >> position of the CRAN maintainers and the R Foundation is valuable, and does >> not have to constitute legal advice. >> >> Best regards, >> Christian > > > > Some additional points, if I may: > > 1. The discussion that Christian points to which references Fritz' comments > is now going on 4 years old. I have seen nothing, to my recollection, that > represents a formal position being taken by the R Foundation on this issue.
I'm somewhat baffled that the one official statement that the R Foundation made specifically for this purpose is apparently being overlooked: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-May/053248.html Cheers, Simon > Thus, I would not have any expectation that they will. If something has been > decided, it appears to be a default position to not change anything vis-a-vis > CRAN without sufficient motivation to do so, which would logically be legally > based at some level. > > 2. As Christian notes, R is a GNU project and is therefore a high profile > project within the open source community. I take a certain level of comfort > that none of the FSF, any other open source advocacy organization or RMS > himself (who as we all know is not shy on these issues and who has spoken at > a useR meeting), has elected to take a negative position on this issue, > resulting in any change in the behavior of CRAN. In other words, there has > been no cease and desist communication regarding the distribution of non-GPL > compatible packages on CRAN or elsewhere for that matter. If there was, I > have no doubt that we all would have heard about it and those packages would > be off CRAN or other points of distribution by now. Given some of the > "energy" contained in prior communications on this issue, I would envision > that one or more of those previous participants would have taken it upon > themselves to proactively communicate their concerns to the FSF. Just saying. > > 3. There are for-profit commercial vendors of R distributions who have built > proprietary components on top of R, who distribute R and other components, > including add-on packages, under multiple licensing scenarios. I have > absolutely no doubt that those vendors' corporate legal counsel have rendered > formal legal opinions suitable to the respective companies and their boards > of directors/investors/shareholders that a clear separation can be made > between R as a GPL application and other components that do not need to be > released under a GPL compatible license, given appropriate parameters. > > So there appear to be two issues here: > > 1. Should CRAN, as a distribution network for a GPL application, contain > non-GPL compatible packages. As I noted, that appears to be a philosophical > issue, with at least a de facto position being held by the R Foundation at > this time. > > 2. Can non-GPL compatible packages for R even be created (even if "pure R"), > based upon the interpretation of the GPL that Christian has postulated? Any > third party R program is certainly going to call at minimum, base R functions > who's source code and/or compiled binaries are not contained in the user's > package/code. Thus there is an implicit dependency on base R functionality > other than the interpreter/parser itself. Given this, it seems to me that > this possible interpretation of the GPL applies even in the scenario where I > create an R package that does not depend upon someone else's CRAN package for > functionality. The significant and long standing precedent in the marketplace > would seem to indicate that the answer is Yes. > > Regards, > > Marc > > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
