Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 26, 2009, at 7:24 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote: On 24-Apr-09 16:53:04, Stavros Macrakis wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: [...] ...inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I think I could then be vulnerable, or they could, on the grounds that I/they had pinched the idea from the commercial product. Unless you have a confidentiality agreement of some kind, or the idea is covered by a patent, you can pinch any ideas you like from other products. Copyright law does not cover ideas. Well, I'm not so sure about that ... Ted, the key word here is copyright law. That is entirely different from patents and IP (that was Stavros' point I think). Cheers, Simon back in 2002/2003, National Instrument sued the MathWorks (MatLab proprietors) on the grounds that the MathWorks Simulink graphical development tool infringed on National Instruments' patented rights in such an idea. NI's implementation is embodied in their LabVIEW tool. In both cases, the tool consists of 'data flow diagrams' drawn on screen under the user's mouse control, using icons, with the ability to associate data structures and code with the nodes and the links. On my reading of it, it was the *idea* of using such a graphical interface itself which National Instruments claimed to have patented, namely The technology of the patents in suit concerns the creation of model systems (generally known as data flow diagrams) through building diagrams on a computer screen by pointing and clicking with a mouse, rather than writing traditional lines of code. ... The patent claims (long, and hoghly detailed) can be read at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4901221.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4914568.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5301336.html The Mathworks lost, and it went to appeal. Mathworks also lost the appeal. The Appeal Court's opinion can be read at http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf And the best of luck ... As I said before, I am not a lawyer and tend to get bewildered by their use of language; but others may end up more sure about this topic! Ted. ...Or maybe the GPL doesn't inhibit you from using *ideas* and *features* of GPL software, provided you implement them yourself and in your own way? The GPL does not and cannot restrict reimplementations of ideas and features. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 26-Apr-09 Time: 12:24:16 -- XFMail -- __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Stavros Macrakis-2 wrote: I do not know of any compiler licenses that place restrictions on what you can do with code compiled under them, though I suppose they could in principle. The restrictions typically come if you link to libraries provided with the compiler. These restrictions definitely exist. For example, you can not legally run programs created with an educational version of a compiler in support of commercial or governmental purposes. Intel provides free compilers for non-commercial software development, with licenses that I think preclude the use of any created programs for governmental purposes. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Closed-source-non-free-ParallelR---tp23170843p23221398.html Sent from the R devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: I said: ...The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot enforce licenses given by the R Foundation On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: Underlying all of your comments seems to be a presumption that the R Foundation can disentangle themselves from the FSF vis-a-vis the GPL. Keep in mind that it is the FSF that is the copyright holder of the GPL. Yes. The GPL itself is copyrighted. The R Foundation may be the copyright holder to R, but they are distributing it under a license which they did not write. Yes. They chose to use a certain license. Thus, I cannot envision any reasonable circumstances under which the R Foundation would place themselves in a position of legal risk in deviating from the interpretations of the GPL by the FSF. It would be insane legally to do so. I don't follow you here. If the R Foundation chose not to enforce a provision of the license in the way that the FSF thinks it ought to be enforced, what exactly could the FSF do about it? As far as I can tell, the GPL does not make the FSF a party in licenses executed under the GPL. The key issue is the lack of case law relative to the GPL and that leaves room for interpretation. One MUST therefore give significant weight to the interpretations of the FSF as it will likely be the FSF that will be involved in any legal disputes over the GPL and its application. You would want them on your side, not be fighting them. You are discussing the courts' interpretation of the GPL, which is not what I'm questioning here. Let me give an analogy. Suppose I buy a piece of property using a standard form contract written by (and copyright by) my local real estate agents' association (a common practice). I then discover that the seller had done something which according to the real estate agents' association's interpretation of the contract entitled me to $1 damages, but that seems unreasonable to me. The particular clause has never been litigated. You seem to be claiming that (a) the real estate agents' association's interpretation of the contract has more weight than my interpretation of it and (b) that they can somehow oblige me to sue for the $1 damages. Now let's say someone else goes to court and (with the legal support of the real estate agents' association) prevails on that clause. Now it is clear that the real estate agents' association's interpretation can be enforced. But I still don't think it's reasonable to enforce it, and still don't choose to sue. You are claiming that they somehow can force me to? Of course, it would be different if a real estate agent were also party to the contract, and would be owed 20% of the $1. But that is not the case. Unfortunately, we have no such archive of case law yet of the GPL. Thus at least from a legally enforceable perspective, all is grey and the FSF has to be the presumptive leader here. Whether the FSF's interpretation is legally enforceable or not, it is the copyright holder who choses whether to sue, not the FSF. We are getting into a lot of hypotheticals here which is going to be a problem due to the lack of clear precedence. The other problem is that we are considering hypotheticals in a vacuum and not in the context of the current political environment vis-a-vis the GPL and FOSS. Under any circumstances, it is up to the R Foundation to pursue or not to pursue legal action against any party that it feels has violated it's copyright and the associated licensing. If it chooses to not pursue that recourse however, it may be setting a precedent for future litigation, placing future actions and decisions at risk. A court may decide that prior inaction in a certain situation is evidence that is relevant to a future case. You failed to enforce your legal rights previously in a 'similar' situation, thus you lose that right now. Not only that, but such inaction could then be used to define the parameters around other legal decisions involving the GPL and how it may be interpreted. That is always a risk that one has to consider and should be the basis of ensuring that all such considerations have a wide angle lens. The FSF would not be in a position to compel the R Foundation to pursue any legal action. However, the political reality at this early stage of the game is that the FSF may very well have a legal interest in a particular situation if it feels that any legal action or lack of legal action by the R Foundation were to be inconsistent with the FSF's own strategic positions and goals. That would require a discussion between the R Foundation and the FSF and they would have to reconcile those differences. Whether the FSF might make the decision to provide legal and financial resources to the R
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:21:45PM -0700, Ian Fellows wrote: Assuming that the foundation does not want to deviate from the FSF interpretation, there would still be value in clarifying its position vis-?-vis how the license applies to R specifically. For example the FSF foundation claims that linking to a library (even in an interpreted environment) makes your software derivative, and therefore must IMO, that's nuts, there is no such thing as linking to a library in an interpreted environment. Linking is a well understood operation in computer programming, and is always done after compilation, typically by a special program called the linker, which is usually ld, the GNU linker. If you are solely running code that you wrote in an interpretor provided by another party, you didn't do any linking, period. And more to the point, this: - Original Message - From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. So, as described by David Smith above, the guys at REvolution Computing (http://www.revolution-computing.com/;) have written some code of their own code from scratch, code which is not derived from any of the code in the R distribution. For the sake of discussion, let's stipulate that David's statement is in fact entirely true. (E.g., they did not cheat and plagiarize any R code.) They happened to choose to write their code ** in the R programming language **. They could have written it in Python or C or Lisp instead, but they chose R. It's their code, and they can distribute it any way they want, including selling it for money. If you do NOT agree with me there, if you instead believe that REvolution Computing's code is somehow automatically derived from the R Project's code and therefore if distributed, must be distributed only under the GPL, well then, logically you must believe that *ANY* code written in the R language is automatically derived from R, and can only be distributed under the GPL. Any code. Do you really want to take that position? Do you REALLY want to scare away any and ALL commercial users from writing software in R, for fear that they'll lose control over how they choose to distribute their own software? No, I didn't think so. Besides, R itself is a second (or third?) implementation and dialect of the S language, originally created at Bell Labs. So gee, maybe R is derived from Bell Labs S, and R's own GPL license is invalid? Of course not, the entire idea is absurd (shades of SCO) - as I hope you agree. -- Andrew Piskorski a...@piskorski.com http://www.piskorski.com/ __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Piskorski a...@piskorski.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:21:45PM -0700, Ian Fellows wrote: [...] IMO, that's nuts, there is no such thing as linking to a library in an interpreted environment. Linking is a well understood operation in computer programming, and is always done after compilation, typically by a special program called the linker, which is usually ld, the GNU linker. If you are solely running code that you wrote in an interpretor provided by another party, you didn't do any linking, period. Khmmm, that might not be true, at least not entirely. If you develop an R package that has C/C++/Fortran code, then the library from your package and R link dynamically at running time. According to the FSF interpretation, the C/C++/etc. part of your package must be under GPL in this case. And more to the point, this: - Original Message - From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. So, as described by David Smith above, the guys at REvolution Computing (http://www.revolution-computing.com/;) have written some code of their own code from scratch, code which is not derived from any of the code in the R distribution. Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine. [...] -- Gabor Csardi gabor.csa...@unil.ch UNIL DGM __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF ?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine. [...] Well, not quite. R.h RDefines.h and RInternals.h are LGPL, so as long as the hooks go through these headers, then all is kosher is it not? Otherwise, what is the point of having them be LGPL? ian __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: ...However, if that commercial interpreter also had a 'compile' option, and I compiled my progrtam using that, then equally I feel sure that the compiled version would be subject to whatever restrictions had been placed on distirbution fo binaries so compiled. I think those things are clear enough. I do not know of any compiler licenses that place restrictions on what you can do with code compiled under them, though I suppose they could in principle. The restrictions typically come if you link to libraries provided with the compiler. ...inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I think I could then be vulnerable, or they could, on the grounds that I/they had pinched the idea from the commercial product. Unless you have a confidentiality agreement of some kind, or the idea is covered by a patent, you can pinch any ideas you like from other products. Copyright law does not cover ideas. ...Or maybe the GPL doesn't inhibit you from using *ideas* and *features* of GPL software, provided you implement them yourself and in your own way? The GPL does not and cannot restrict reimplementations of ideas and features. -s __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Ian Fellows wrote: Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF ?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine. [...] Well, not quite. R.h RDefines.h and RInternals.h are LGPL, so as long as the hooks go through these headers, then all is kosher is it not? Otherwise, what is the point of having them be LGPL? Making sure that packages are not GPL just because they include those header files. The problem is that it is not clear that it suffices in all cases. It is a legal grey zone, see the plugin sections in the GPL FAQ, for instance. -- O__ Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~ - (p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Ian Fellows ifell...@ucsd.edu wrote: Still, if they have code that is compiled and linked to R at running time, then that code must be under the GPL. Again, this is the FSF ?interpretation and certainly not R-core's, not even mine. [...] Well, not quite. R.h RDefines.h and RInternals.h are LGPL, so as long as the hooks go through these headers, then all is kosher is it not? Otherwise, what is the point of having them be LGPL? What the point is I do not know, but I doubt that your argument would satisfy FSF. The problem is not the using the headers at compile time, but the linking against it at run time step. AFAIK. Gabor ian -- Gabor Csardi gabor.csa...@unil.ch UNIL DGM __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD? Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses derivative work Points taken. It may not be derivation in the sense of modification, more in the sense of using R as a library : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (paragraphs 3 and 4 in particular) R, and base functions written in R, are GPL not LGPL. In the context of the FAQ above, do your packages use base functions ? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html The first R FAQ (1.1) states that R is released under GPL version 2 or any later version. At the end of the GPL (both v2 and v3) it says This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. there are certainly many existing R packages with non-free/non-open licenses They could be in breach too. The fact their licenses are like that does not in itself mean they are compliant with the GPL. R FAQ 2.11 defers to legal counsel - it mentions such licenses but it states no opinion about them as far as my reading goes. At least the source code of those packages is available for download. REvolution appear to be going one step further i.e. bundling R with their proprietary packages and selling the work as a whole. Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the situation please ? If in your opinion it is all fine what people are doing, why not release R under the LGPL for clarity ? Regards, Matthew - Original Message - From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com To: Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.com Cc: Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com; r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. In retrospect, the name ParallelR may be somewhat confusing in this sense... # David Smith On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com wrote: I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL? Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.comwrote: Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the GPL and ParallelR thread from their R forum. mdowle It appears that ParallelR (packages foreach and iterators) is only available bundled with the Enterprise edition. Since R is GPL, and ParallelR is derived from R, should ParallelR not also be GPL? Regards, Matthew revolution Hello Matthew, ParallelR consists of both proprietary and GPL packages. The randomForest and snow libraries GPL licensed, whereas the other libraries we include have a commercial license(including 'foreach' and 'iterators'). Stephen Weller revolution I wanted to expand on Stephen's reply. ParallelR is a suite of R packages, and it is well established that packages can be under a difference license than R itself (i.e. not the GPL
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Hi Matt, Do you know if a project like R(D)COM/Statconn can changing their license to make it closed-source? (www.statconn.com http://rcom.univie.ac.at/ ) There was discussion on the RCom board about such changes earlier this year as they move toward commercialization. If you're not familiar it's a package/windows COM program that allows EXCEL and other win apps to interact directly with R. They have also generated an installer package which installs R at the same time as their software. It makes 'R' effectively disappear from the windows box. Would distribution of that software also have to stay as GPL not LGPL? As R effectively sits within the proprietary system of Statconn. Regards, Fraser -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Dowle Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:37 PM To: David M Smith; Patrick Shields; r-devel@r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD? Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses derivative work Points taken. It may not be derivation in the sense of modification, more in the sense of using R as a library : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (paragraphs 3 and 4 in particular) R, and base functions written in R, are GPL not LGPL. In the context of the FAQ above, do your packages use base functions ? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html The first R FAQ (1.1) states that R is released under GPL version 2 or any later version. At the end of the GPL (both v2 and v3) it says This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. there are certainly many existing R packages with non-free/non-open licenses They could be in breach too. The fact their licenses are like that does not in itself mean they are compliant with the GPL. R FAQ 2.11 defers to legal counsel - it mentions such licenses but it states no opinion about them as far as my reading goes. At least the source code of those packages is available for download. REvolution appear to be going one step further i.e. bundling R with their proprietary packages and selling the work as a whole. Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the situation please ? If in your opinion it is all fine what people are doing, why not release R under the LGPL for clarity ? Regards, Matthew - Original Message - From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com To: Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.com Cc: Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com; r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. In retrospect, the name ParallelR may be somewhat confusing in this sense... # David Smith On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com wrote: I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL? Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.comwrote: Dear R-devel, REvolution appear
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
The FSF clearly promulgated the GPL with the intent of prohibiting the bundling of GPL code with proprietary code. The way the GPL does this is by putting conditions on distribution: if you distribute a program based on a GPL program, the whole program must be licensed under the GPL. Clearly, the crux of the matter is the meaning of distribute and based on. The FSF takes a maximalist view of this, so that (for example) distributing R together with additional components (libraries / packages / whatever), even if they are in separate files and loaded dynamically, would require that the additional components be licensed under GPL (and therefore that their source be released). The additional libraries need not be derived works of the original; this is not a copyright issue, but a licensing issue. I am not a lawyer, so can't judge this professionally, but it seems to me that the copyright owner is within his rights to impose conditions like this on distribution -- just as he could arbitrarily decide that he will only license his code to people whose names begin with 'T'. The logic is not: I require you to release your code under GPL but: I will only license my GPL code to you for this application if you release your code under GPL. On the other hand, the GPL explicitly allows *users* of the code to do what they want, including mixing it with proprietary code, as long as they don't distribute the result. And I do not believe the copyright holder has any way of preventing a third party from distributing *separately* code that can be run on top of R. In fact the FSF itself has been quite clear that they don't consider that the license for a language implementation restricts the code that can be run on top of it in any way. All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation and the copyright holders of any other packages redistributed by the bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is. Regardless of what the license says, it is up to the R Foundation to decide what *its* interpretation of the license is and under what circumstances it would ask a distributor of its code to cease and desist -- and that failing, sue. -s __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation and the copyright holders of any other packages redistributed by the bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is. Regardless of what the license says, it is up to the R Foundation to decide what *its* interpretation of the license is and under what circumstances it would ask a distributor of its code to cease and desist -- and that failing, sue. Actually, the R Foundation has done what it is obligated to do, which is to describe the license under which R is made available. To ask the R Foundation for anything further is to ask them to render a legal opinion, which is not in their expertise to offer. It is up to the prospective third party developer of an application that is to use R to consult with lawyers to determine what *THEIR* obligations are if they should elect to proceed. Since much of this has not yet been tested in case law, the burden is on the the third party developer, not on the R Foundation, since the R Foundation cannot reasonably conceive of every possible scenario under which R or subsets of code from R may be used. The key thing to keep in mind is that the GPL really applies to the **distribution** of software and not the **use** of software. Thus, if one is going to use R or code from R internally, the obligations are more limited than if one builds an application that links to R or uses code from R and then will *distribute* that application to other parties, whether that distribution be free of charge or for a price. There are two key scenarios here: 1. I am building an application that simply calls R via a script or batch type of interface. Think building a GUI on top of R. I distribute my application and may or may not distribute R with it. I can license my application in any fashion that I wish, closed source or otherwise. If I don't distribute R with my application and simply point users to where they can download R, then I have no obligation with respect to R. If I distribute R with my application, then I also have an obligation to make R's source code available to my users in some fashion. Neither situation obligates me to make the source code for my application available or to license my application under the GPL. 2. I build an application that includes source code from R and/or links to R libraries at a compiler level. In this case the derivative works and/or the so-called viral part of the GPL kicks in. Here, I am obligated to license my application under a compatible license AND make the source code to my application available as a consequence. At this level, it is really pretty simple and a lot of these things are covered in the GPL FAQs, including the reporting of violations. For GPL 3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html For GPL 2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html HTH, Marc Schwartz __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:36:48 +0100, Matthew Dowle (MD) wrote: [...] Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the situation please ? 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. Unfortunately New Zealand, Europe and the US are in quite different time zones, hence discussions by email take some time. Best regards, Fritz Leisch -- --- Prof. Dr. Friedrich Leisch Institut für Statistik Tel: (+49 89) 2180 3165 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Fax: (+49 89) 2180 5308 Ludwigstraße 33 D-80539 München http://www.statistik.lmu.de/~leisch --- Journal Computational Statistics --- http://www.springer.com/180 Münchner R Kurse --- http://www.statistik.lmu.de/R __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Friedrich Leisch friedrich.lei...@stat.uni-muenchen.de wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:36:48 +0100, Matthew Dowle (MD) wrote: [...] Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the situation please ? 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. Unfortunately New Zealand, Europe and the US are in quite different time zones, hence discussions by email take some time. Aside from R there are the add-on packages. A frequency table showing the licenses of the CRAN packages indicates that the all or almost all packages have some sort of free software license with GPL licenses being most common. (A few packages have restrictions to noncommercial use and that may conflict with GPL, not sure.) That is not to say that there are no other types of packages but any such packages are not on CRAN. AGPL (gt;3.0), with attribution as per LICENSE file 1 AGPL 3.0 (with attribution) 1 Apache License 2.0 2 Artistic-2.0 5 Artistic License 2 Artistic License 2.0 1 avas is public domain, ace is on Statlib 1 BSD 16 CeCILL 1 CeCILL-2 2 Common Public License Version 1.0 2 Distribution and use for non-commercial purposes only. 1 file LICENCE 2 file LICENSE 38 Fortran code: ACM, free for non-commercial use, R functions 1 free for non-commercial purposes 1 Free for nonprofit use. 1 Free. See the LICENCE file for details. 1 GNU General Public License 3 GNU General Public License Version 2 4 GPL 222 GPL-2 316 GPL-2 | file LICENCE 1 GPL-2 | file LICENSE 7 GPL-2 | GPL-3 13 GPL-2. Contributions from Randall C. Johnson are Copyright 1 GPL-2; incorporates by permission code of W. Bachman (wrtab 1 GPL-3 38 GPL (ge; 2) 872 GPL (ge; 2) | file LICENSE 1 GPL (ge; 2.0) 2
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation... bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is Actually, the R Foundation has done what it is obligated to do, which is to describe the license under which R is made available. I did not say that the R Foundation was obligated to give advice. I said that it is up to the R Foundation to decide what cases it cares about, and it would be useful to know what that position is. To ask the R Foundation for anything further is to ask them to render a legal opinion, which is not in their expertise to offer. No, it is asking them what their *policy* is. Their policy may or may not be enforceable It is up to the prospective third party developer of an application that is to use R to consult with lawyers to determine what *THEIR* obligations are if they should elect to proceed. Yes, this is true. But it is also true that if (for example) the R Foundation says officially that it interprets GPL to allow distributing proprietary packages along with R, then that is the interpretation that matters, since the R Foundation (not the FSF) is the copyright holder. At this level, it is really pretty simple and a lot of these things are covered in the GPL FAQs, including the reporting of violations. The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot enforce licenses given by the R Foundation. -s __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Have you also looked at: http://nws-r.sourceforge.net/ The core of their ParallelR product is nws and that package was last updated a month ago. -- Max __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Hi Matt, Do you know if a project like R(D)COM/Statconn can changing their license to make it closed-source? (www.statconn.com http://rcom.univie.ac.at/ ) There was discussion on the RCom board about such changes earlier this year as they move toward commercialization. If you're not familiar it's a package/windows COM program that allows EXCEL and other win apps to interact directly with R. They have also generated an installer package which installs R at the same time as their software. It makes 'R' effectively disappear from the windows box. Would distribution of that software also have to stay as GPL not LGPL? As R effectively sits within the proprietary system of Statconn. Regards, Fraser -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Dowle Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:37 PM To: David M Smith; Patrick Shields; r-devel@r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? how could it [MCE] swap a GPL license for the BSD? Because the BSD is an open source license compatible with GPL. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses derivative work Points taken. It may not be derivation in the sense of modification, more in the sense of using R as a library : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (paragraphs 3 and 4 in particular) R, and base functions written in R, are GPL not LGPL. In the context of the FAQ above, do your packages use base functions ? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html The first R FAQ (1.1) states that R is released under GPL version 2 or any later version. At the end of the GPL (both v2 and v3) it says This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. there are certainly many existing R packages with non-free/non-open licenses They could be in breach too. The fact their licenses are like that does not in itself mean they are compliant with the GPL. R FAQ 2.11 defers to legal counsel - it mentions such licenses but it states no opinion about them as far as my reading goes. At least the source code of those packages is available for download. REvolution appear to be going one step further i.e. bundling R with their proprietary packages and selling the work as a whole. Could someone from the R Foundation or the FSF step in and clarify the situation please ? If in your opinion it is all fine what people are doing, why not release R under the LGPL for clarity ? Regards, Matthew - Original Message - From: David M Smith da...@revolution-computing.com To: Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.com Cc: Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com; r-devel@r-project.org Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. In retrospect, the name ParallelR may be somewhat confusing in this sense... # David Smith On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com wrote: I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL? Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.comwrote: Dear R-devel, REvolution appear
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation... bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is Actually, the R Foundation has done what it is obligated to do, which is to describe the license under which R is made available. I did not say that the R Foundation was obligated to give advice. I said that it is up to the R Foundation to decide what cases it cares about, and it would be useful to know what that position is. To ask the R Foundation for anything further is to ask them to render a legal opinion, which is not in their expertise to offer. No, it is asking them what their *policy* is. Their policy may or may not be enforceable It is up to the prospective third party developer of an application that is to use R to consult with lawyers to determine what *THEIR* obligations are if they should elect to proceed. Yes, this is true. But it is also true that if (for example) the R Foundation says officially that it interprets GPL to allow distributing proprietary packages along with R, then that is the interpretation that matters, since the R Foundation (not the FSF) is the copyright holder. At this level, it is really pretty simple and a lot of these things are covered in the GPL FAQs, including the reporting of violations. The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot enforce licenses given by the R Foundation. Underlying all of your comments seems to be a presumption that the R Foundation can disentangle themselves from the FSF vis-a-vis the GPL. Keep in mind that it is the FSF that is the copyright holder of the GPL. The R Foundation may be the copyright holder to R, but they are distributing it under a license which they did not write. Thus, I cannot envision any reasonable circumstances under which the R Foundation would place themselves in a position of legal risk in deviating from the interpretations of the GPL by the FSF. It would be insane legally to do so. The key issue is the lack of case law relative to the GPL and that leaves room for interpretation. One MUST therefore give significant weight to the interpretations of the FSF as it will likely be the FSF that will be involved in any legal disputes over the GPL and its application. You would want them on your side, not be fighting them. A parallel here is why most large U.S. public corporations legally incorporate in the state of Delaware, even though they may not have any material physical presence in that state. It is because the overwhelming majority of corporate case law in the U.S. has been decided under the laws of Delaware and the interpretations of said laws. If I were to start a company (which I have done in the past) and feared that I should find myself facing litigation at some future date, I would want that huge database of case law behind me. A small company (such as I had) may be less concerned about this and be comfortable with the laws of their own state, which I was. But if I were to be looking to build a big company with investors, etc. and perhaps look to go public at a future date, you bet I would look to incorporate in Delaware. It would be the right fiduciary decision to make in the interest of all parties. Unfortunately, we have no such archive of case law yet of the GPL. Thus at least from a legally enforceable perspective, all is grey and the FSF has to be the presumptive leader here. HTH, Marc Schwartz __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Assuming that the foundation does not want to deviate from the FSF interpretation, there would still be value in clarifying its position vis-à-vis how the license applies to R specifically. For example the FSF foundation claims that linking to a library (even in an interpreted environment) makes your software derivative, and therefore must be distributed Freely. They also claim that simply executing a program in an interpreted (GPL'ed) environment is okay even though the program could not be run without it. So one question might be, where does the language end and the libraries begin? Are any/all of the default packages considered part of the language? It seems hard to imagine doing anything at all without at least 'base.' If I install R in the usual way with no other packages/libraries can I release whatever I write under any license, or does it have to be GPL compatible? While I wouldn't expect R core to formulate formal legal opinions regarding questions like these, it would be nice if there were some kind of community standards. Ian -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Schwartz Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:34 PM To: Stavros Macrakis Cc: Matthew Dowle; r-devel@r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation... bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is Actually, the R Foundation has done what it is obligated to do, which is to describe the license under which R is made available. I did not say that the R Foundation was obligated to give advice. I said that it is up to the R Foundation to decide what cases it cares about, and it would be useful to know what that position is. To ask the R Foundation for anything further is to ask them to render a legal opinion, which is not in their expertise to offer. No, it is asking them what their *policy* is. Their policy may or may not be enforceable It is up to the prospective third party developer of an application that is to use R to consult with lawyers to determine what *THEIR* obligations are if they should elect to proceed. Yes, this is true. But it is also true that if (for example) the R Foundation says officially that it interprets GPL to allow distributing proprietary packages along with R, then that is the interpretation that matters, since the R Foundation (not the FSF) is the copyright holder. At this level, it is really pretty simple and a lot of these things are covered in the GPL FAQs, including the reporting of violations. The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot enforce licenses given by the R Foundation. Underlying all of your comments seems to be a presumption that the R Foundation can disentangle themselves from the FSF vis-a-vis the GPL. Keep in mind that it is the FSF that is the copyright holder of the GPL. The R Foundation may be the copyright holder to R, but they are distributing it under a license which they did not write. Thus, I cannot envision any reasonable circumstances under which the R Foundation would place themselves in a position of legal risk in deviating from the interpretations of the GPL by the FSF. It would be insane legally to do so. The key issue is the lack of case law relative to the GPL and that leaves room for interpretation. One MUST therefore give significant weight to the interpretations of the FSF as it will likely be the FSF that will be involved in any legal disputes over the GPL and its application. You would want them on your side, not be fighting them. A parallel here is why most large U.S. public corporations legally incorporate in the state of Delaware, even though they may not have any material physical presence in that state. It is because the overwhelming majority of corporate case law in the U.S. has been decided under the laws of Delaware and the interpretations of said laws. If I were to start a company (which I have done in the past) and feared that I should find myself facing litigation at some future date, I would want that huge database of case law behind me. A small company (such as I had) may be less concerned about this and be comfortable with the laws of their own state, which I was. But if I were to be looking to build a big company with investors, etc. and perhaps look to go public at a future date, you bet I would look to incorporate in Delaware. It would be the right fiduciary decision to make in the interest of all
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
I said: ...The GPL FAQs are the FSF's interpretation. The R Foundation is not obliged to have the same interpretation, and of course the FSF cannot enforce licenses given by the R Foundation On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: Underlying all of your comments seems to be a presumption that the R Foundation can disentangle themselves from the FSF vis-a-vis the GPL. Keep in mind that it is the FSF that is the copyright holder of the GPL. Yes. The GPL itself is copyrighted. The R Foundation may be the copyright holder to R, but they are distributing it under a license which they did not write. Yes. They chose to use a certain license. Thus, I cannot envision any reasonable circumstances under which the R Foundation would place themselves in a position of legal risk in deviating from the interpretations of the GPL by the FSF. It would be insane legally to do so. I don't follow you here. If the R Foundation chose not to enforce a provision of the license in the way that the FSF thinks it ought to be enforced, what exactly could the FSF do about it? As far as I can tell, the GPL does not make the FSF a party in licenses executed under the GPL. The key issue is the lack of case law relative to the GPL and that leaves room for interpretation. One MUST therefore give significant weight to the interpretations of the FSF as it will likely be the FSF that will be involved in any legal disputes over the GPL and its application. You would want them on your side, not be fighting them. You are discussing the courts' interpretation of the GPL, which is not what I'm questioning here. Let me give an analogy. Suppose I buy a piece of property using a standard form contract written by (and copyright by) my local real estate agents' association (a common practice). I then discover that the seller had done something which according to the real estate agents' association's interpretation of the contract entitled me to $1 damages, but that seems unreasonable to me. The particular clause has never been litigated. You seem to be claiming that (a) the real estate agents' association's interpretation of the contract has more weight than my interpretation of it and (b) that they can somehow oblige me to sue for the $1 damages. Now let's say someone else goes to court and (with the legal support of the real estate agents' association) prevails on that clause. Now it is clear that the real estate agents' association's interpretation can be enforced. But I still don't think it's reasonable to enforce it, and still don't choose to sue. You are claiming that they somehow can force me to? Of course, it would be different if a real estate agent were also party to the contract, and would be owed 20% of the $1. But that is not the case. Unfortunately, we have no such archive of case law yet of the GPL. Thus at least from a legally enforceable perspective, all is grey and the FSF has to be the presumptive leader here. Whether the FSF's interpretation is legally enforceable or not, it is the copyright holder who choses whether to sue, not the FSF. -s __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On 23-Apr-09 22:21:45, Ian Fellows wrote: Assuming that the foundation does not want to deviate from the FSF interpretation, there would still be value in clarifying its position vis-à-vis how the license applies to R specifically. I think (see below) that I agree with this! For example the FSF foundation claims that linking to a library (even in an interpreted environment) makes your software derivative, and therefore must be distributed Freely. They also claim that simply executing a program in an interpreted (GPL'ed) environment is okay even though the program could not be run without it. So one question might be, where does the language end and the libraries begin? As far as I Understand these things (and I think I use language differently from lawyers), it seems to me that this view about executing a program in an interpreted environment is reasonable. For example, suppose I bought a commercial FORTRAN interpreter. I write a program (plain text, of course) in standard FORTRAN. Running this on the interpreter surely would not tie me into any licensing issues arising from the rights of the seller of the interpreter, and I feel sure I could re-distribute my raw (test) FORTRAN code as I pleased without any infringement arising from the fact that I had, myself, executed it on the interpreter. Others (and I myself) could surely compile the program on some other compiler, etc. However, if that commercial interpreter also had a 'compile' option, and I compiled my progrtam using that, then equally I feel sure that the compiled version would be subject to whatever restrictions had been placed on distirbution fo binaries so compiled. I think those things are clear enough. The interesting question arises if the commercial interpreter also included some extension of standard FORTRAN which was unique to that interpreter. I dare say I could pass a program which included use of the extension to others without problems, on thr grounds that they would have to obtain te same interpreter in order to run it. But now suppose that my having done this inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I think I could then be vulnerable, or they could, on the grounds that I/they had pinched the idea from the commercial product. And now (relevent to Ian's next point), maybe a similar principle might be held to apply to R code which depends on R's use of GPL? -- since people who write R code often use features of the code which are peculiar to R. Or maybe the GPL doesn't inhibit you from using *ideas* and *features* of GPL software, provided you implement them yourself and in your own way? I dunno ... Ted. Are any/all of the default packages considered part of the language? It seems hard to imagine doing anything at all without at least 'base.' If I install R in the usual way with no other packages/libraries can I release whatever I write under any license, or does it have to be GPL compatible? While I wouldn't expect R core to formulate formal legal opinions regarding questions like these, it would be nice if there were some kind of community standards. Ian -Original Message- From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Schwartz Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:34 PM To: Stavros Macrakis Cc: Matthew Dowle; r-devel@r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ? On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Marc Schwartz marc_schwa...@me.com wrote: On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: All that being said, the entity that must enforce these conditions is not the FSF, but the copyright owner, in this case the R Foundation... bundler. So it would be useful to know what the R Foundation's position is Actually, the R Foundation has done what it is obligated to do, which is to describe the license under which R is made available. I did not say that the R Foundation was obligated to give advice. I said that it is up to the R Foundation to decide what cases it cares about, and it would be useful to know what that position is. To ask the R Foundation for anything further is to ask them to render a legal opinion, which is not in their expertise to offer. No, it is asking them what their *policy* is. Their policy may or may not be enforceable It is up to the prospective third party developer of an application that is to use R to consult with lawyers to determine what *THEIR* obligations are if they should elect to proceed. Yes, this is true. But it is also true that if (for example) the R Foundation says officially that it interprets GPL to allow distributing proprietary packages along with R, then that is the interpretation that matters, since the R Foundation (not the FSF) is the copyright holder. At this level, it is really pretty simple
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: On 23-Apr-09 22:21:45, Ian Fellows wrote: Assuming that the foundation does not want to deviate from the FSF interpretation, there would still be value in clarifying its position vis-à-vis how the license applies to R specifically. I think (see below) that I agree with this! For example the FSF foundation claims that linking to a library (even in an interpreted environment) makes your software derivative, and therefore must be distributed Freely. They also claim that simply executing a program in an interpreted (GPL'ed) environment is okay even though the program could not be run without it. So one question might be, where does the language end and the libraries begin? As far as I Understand these things (and I think I use language differently from lawyers), it seems to me that this view about executing a program in an interpreted environment is reasonable. For example, suppose I bought a commercial FORTRAN interpreter. I write a program (plain text, of course) in standard FORTRAN. Running this on the interpreter surely would not tie me into any licensing issues arising from the rights of the seller of the interpreter, and I feel sure I could re-distribute my raw (test) FORTRAN code as I pleased without any infringement arising from the fact that I had, myself, executed it on the interpreter. Others (and I myself) could surely compile the program on some other compiler, etc. However, if that commercial interpreter also had a 'compile' option, and I compiled my progrtam using that, then equally I feel sure that the compiled version would be subject to whatever restrictions had been placed on distirbution fo binaries so compiled. I think those things are clear enough. Typically commercial compilers have royalty-free runtime libraries so you can freely distribute software processed with the compiler. Similarly, In the free software world, gcc has the gcc Runtime Library Exception to allow commercial software to use gcc. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL? Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.comwrote: Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the GPL and ParallelR thread from their R forum. mdowle It appears that ParallelR (packages foreach and iterators) is only available bundled with the Enterprise edition. Since R is GPL, and ParallelR is derived from R, should ParallelR not also be GPL? Regards, Matthew revolution Hello Matthew, ParallelR consists of both proprietary and GPL packages. The randomForest and snow libraries GPL licensed, whereas the other libraries we include have a commercial license(including 'foreach' and 'iterators'). Stephen Weller revolution I wanted to expand on Stephen's reply. ParallelR is a suite of R packages, and it is well established that packages can be under a difference license than R itself (i.e. not the GPL). For example, package MCE is licensed under BSD, RColorBrewer is licensed under Apache, most of Bioconductor is under the Artistic license and some are under completely unique licenses (e.g. mclust). REvolution Computing developed all of the code in ParallelR (except for the bundled GPL packages Stephen mentions), and we decided to release it under our own license in REvolution R Enterprise. That said, we do already release components of parallelR, such as the underlying engine, Networkspaces (also written by REvolution Computing) under an open source licence. Also, we are likely to release some other components including foreach and iterators, to CRAN soon. David Smith Director of Community, REvolution Computing mdowle The examples you give (MCE, RColorBrewer, Bioconductor) are all available for free including the source code. Their licenses have been approved by the FSF. Free software and open source are the terms of work derived from GPL licensed software. REvolution's packages 'foreach' and 'iterators' are neither free or open source. Can you provide a precedent for proprietary closed-source packages for R ? Is your policy approved by the FSF ? I don't object to REvolution. I am a fan of you making money from training courses, consultancy, support and binaries. These are all permitted by the GPL. However the GPL does not allow you to distribute work derived from R which is either closed source or non-free. R is GPL, not LGPL. The above is my personal understanding. I am now posting to r-devel to check, feel free to join the public debate there. Regards, Matthew [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Pat Shields Software Engineer REvolution Computing One Century Tower | 265 Church Street, Suite 1006 New Haven, CT 06510 P: 203-777-7442 x250 | www.revolution-computing.com Check out our upcoming events schedule at www.revolution-computing.com/events [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Patrick made all the points that I was going to make (thanks, Patrick), but I wanted to reinforce one point that may be the source of the confusion: ParallelR is not a modified version of R: ParallelR is a suite of ordinary R packages that run on top of the R engine like any other package. The R code and Python code in these packages were written entirely by REvolution Computing staff (including Patrick), and do not contain any code (derived or otherwise) from the R project. In retrospect, the name ParallelR may be somewhat confusing in this sense... # David Smith On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Patrick Shields p...@revolution-computing.com wrote: I'm Pat Shields, one of the software engineers working on ParallelR. I just wanted to make two points: no R code or previously gpl'd code can be found in any of the non-gpl packages in ParallelR. I'm sure that the phrase derived works is a legally subtle one, but all these packages include are R and occasionally python scripts (as well as the standard text documentation). If these are derived works, doesn't that mean that any R code is also, by extension, required to be GPL'd? If not, is it including these scripts in a package that forces the use of the GPL? Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Dowle mdo...@mdowle.plus.comwrote: Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the GPL and ParallelR thread from their R forum. mdowle It appears that ParallelR (packages foreach and iterators) is only available bundled with the Enterprise edition. Since R is GPL, and ParallelR is derived from R, should ParallelR not also be GPL? Regards, Matthew revolution Hello Matthew, ParallelR consists of both proprietary and GPL packages. The randomForest and snow libraries GPL licensed, whereas the other libraries we include have a commercial license(including 'foreach' and 'iterators'). Stephen Weller revolution I wanted to expand on Stephen's reply. ParallelR is a suite of R packages, and it is well established that packages can be under a difference license than R itself (i.e. not the GPL). For example, package MCE is licensed under BSD, RColorBrewer is licensed under Apache, most of Bioconductor is under the Artistic license and some are under completely unique licenses (e.g. mclust). REvolution Computing developed all of the code in ParallelR (except for the bundled GPL packages Stephen mentions), and we decided to release it under our own license in REvolution R Enterprise. That said, we do already release components of parallelR, such as the underlying engine, Networkspaces (also written by REvolution Computing) under an open source licence. Also, we are likely to release some other components including foreach and iterators, to CRAN soon. David Smith Director of Community, REvolution Computing mdowle The examples you give (MCE, RColorBrewer, Bioconductor) are all available for free including the source code. Their licenses have been approved by the FSF. Free software and open source are the terms of work derived from GPL licensed software. REvolution's packages 'foreach' and 'iterators' are neither free or open source. Can you provide a precedent for proprietary closed-source packages for R ? Is your policy approved by the FSF ? I don't object to REvolution. I am a fan of you making money from training courses, consultancy, support and binaries. These are all permitted by the GPL. However the GPL does not allow you to distribute work derived from R which is either closed source or non-free. R is GPL, not LGPL. The above is my personal understanding. I am now posting to r-devel to check, feel free to join the public debate there. Regards, Matthew [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Pat Shields Software Engineer REvolution Computing One Century Tower | 265 Church Street, Suite 1006 New Haven, CT 06510 P: 203-777-7442 x250 | www.revolution-computing.com Check out our upcoming events schedule at www.revolution-computing.com/events [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- David M Smith
Re: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Also, I'm confused about your dimissal of the MCE example. If that code was a derivative work of R, how could it swap a GPL license for the BSD? I didn't think such a switch was possible. If it was, I'd imagine a lot more use of it, as a quick front project could make GPL software into BSD software after which all changes could go on behind closed doors. And there are certainly many existing R packages with non-free/non-open licenses: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ff/LICENSE http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/minpack.lm/LICENSE http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rngwell19937/LICENSE http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/SDDA/LICENSE ... Found with http://www.google.com/search?q=site:cran.r-project.org+cran+%22file+license%22 Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
