On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Simon Urbanek <simon.urba...@r-project.org> wrote:
> > 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 Well, clearly my recollection is faulty. Thanks for that Simon. Now that you point that out, I do recall Robert's post, albeit, I think it got lost in the traffic on R-Devel, which contributes to the lack of recall. Perhaps it would be reasonable to add something to the R FAQs which at least points to that post. As noted, it implies that the position of the R Foundation is that non-GPL compatible packages are suitable for distribution via CRAN. Note that I am not disagreeing with that position, nor advocating any change. Regards, Marc > >> 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
