On 06/11/2016 4:11 AM, Lenth, Russell V wrote:
A correction and clarification...

It is MY package's GPL-2 license that is being violated by the other package -- 
not its GPL-3 license.

Let me lay it out with some generic names:
  * The 'foo' package specifies a GPL-2 license
  * The 'bar' package depends on 'foo', but specifies a GPL-3 license. That 
violates foo's GPL-2 license.

More details:
  * 'foo' provides a particular type of analysis embodied in a function named 
'manchoo',
     and provides methods for various classes.
  * 'bar' provides an S3 method for 'manchoo', via statements like this in its 
NAMESPACE file:
        importFrom(foo, manchoo)
        S3method(manchoo, bar)
  * The developer of 'foo' welcomes such expanded availability of 'manchoo' 
methods.

So there seem to be two ways to resolve this:
  1. The developer of 'foo' changes its license to GPL-3 (does that indeed 
resolve the license issue?)
      -- OR --
  2. The developer of 'bar' removes the dependency on 'foo', by not importing 
'manchoo' or its
      S3method; instead, it simply exports the function 'manchoo.bar' and moves 
'foo' to Suggests

And a third way is for the developer of 'bar' to allow it to be dual licensed as GPL 2 or 3, or something else more permissive than GPL 3. They may not be able to do that if they are not the sole copyright holder, just as you won't be able to do 1 without the permission of all other copyright holders.

Duncan Murdoch



Thanks for any suggestions

Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: Lenth, Russell V
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:28 PM
To: 'r-package-devel@r-project.org' <r-package-devel@r-project.org>
Subject: Relicense to GPL-3?

Dear all,

I received an email from a user telling me that another package that depends on my package 
is licensed GPL(>=3), whereas mine is licensed GPL-2; and that therefore, the other 
package is in violation of its GPL-3 license. This apparently causes an issue with the 
Debian packaging system, throwing that other package into the "unstable" category.

Moreover, the correspondent asks me if I would consider changing the license 
for my package. To what is not specified, but I guess it would be to GPL-3.

I don't really understand why this isn't the other developer's problem and not 
mine. But on the other hand, I don't want to cause problems for others. The 
licensing stuff is hard for me to understand - in large part because of low 
motivation to dig into it; I really would rather think about providing better 
code and features than all sorts of legal gobble-de-gook. Nonetheless, I guess 
this stuff is important to some people (e.g., Debian) so I suppose I had better 
get it right.

My decision to put GPL-2 in the first place was primarily expedience: it seemed like what 
people wanted. So is GPL-3 "better"? Do I risk anything by changing it? Do I 
risk anything by not changing it? How much does it matter, really?

Thanks

Russ

Russell V. Lenth  -  Professor Emeritus
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science The University of Iowa  -  Iowa 
City, IA 52242  USA Voice (319)335-0712 (Dept. office)  -  FAX (319)335-3017

______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel


______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

Reply via email to