Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Ivan Krylov]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:33:56 -0400
Avraham Adler  wrote:

> If there is a term which reflects that mechanism from a discipline
> other than biology, please let me know.

I think that "copyleft" is the term you are looking for. The Wikipedia
page [*] defines it as

>> the practice of offering people the right to freely distribute copies
>> and modified versions of a work with the stipulation that the same
>> rights be preserved in derivative works created later

-- 
Best regards,
Ivan

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[R. Mark Sharp]

Spencer,

I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the topic. I 
will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has listed GPL-1, 2, 
and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and cannot be used by a 
Google product delivered to outside customers. This include downloadable client 
software and software such as insdie the Google Search Appliance. This includes 
having scripts that load packages dynamically as with “library()” and 
“require()”. Please see 
https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for their 
wording. 

I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it is their 
position based on what I think is a conservative or overly cautious legal 
interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are of no import.

Mark
R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
7526 Meadow Green St.
San Antonio, TX 78251
mobile: 210-218-2868
rmsh...@me.com











> On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves 
>  wrote:
> 
>   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the 
> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to avoid 
> them?
> 
> 
>   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost 
> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written from a 
> neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several emails a day 
> notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD, vandalism, etc., 
> are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk" page associated 
> with each article, where the world is invited to provide credible source(s).
> 
> 
>   Spencer Graves
> 
> 
> On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in the 
>> legal community that some companies avoid them.
>> 
>> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'
>> 
>> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is licensed
>> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large corporations
>> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.
>> 
>> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you have 
>> the
>> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
> 
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org  mailing 
> list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel 
> 

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Avraham Adler]

I respectfully submit that the mechanism is accurately described as “viral”
albeit the connotations may be uncomfortable. I will refrain from
commenting further in this thread. Happy to continue with you off-list if
you wish.

Thank you,

Aavi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:43 PM Jeff Newmiller 
wrote:

> The obvious answer is simply to refer to GPL. It isn't necessary to
> propagate a derogatory point of view by finding another word for an
> incorrect idea.  Try re-reading my previous words without trying to hold on
> to a flawed interpretation.
>
> On June 2, 2020 5:33:56 PM PDT, Avraham Adler 
> wrote:
> >Apologies; my intent was not to disparage, but that is the term is used
> >in
> >the industry and in venues which discuss FLOSS because it reflects that
> >the
> >addition of one component with that kind of copyleft license causes the
> >entire project to need that particular copyleft license. If there is a
> >term
> >which reflects that mechanism from a discipline other than biology,
> >please let me know.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Avi
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM Jeff Newmiller
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person
> >using
> >> the term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want
> >you to
> >> take their contributions out of circulation by using it as the
> >foundation
> >> of your proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from
> >scratch or
> >> find some other code that isn't GPL.
> >>
> >> Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to
> >steal
> >> something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen.
> >> Please refrain from being inflammatory.
> >>
> >> On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it
> >infects
> >> >anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something
> >> >like
> >> >the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral
> >> >copyleft
> >> >and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
> >> >
> >> >Avi
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Spencer,
> >> >>
> >> >> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the
> >> >topic.
> >> >> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has
> >> >listed
> >> >> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and
> >> >cannot
> >> >> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This
> >> >include
> >> >> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the
> >Google
> >> >Search
> >> >> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages
> >> >dynamically as
> >> >> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
> >> >> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for
> >> >their
> >> >> wording.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However,
> >it
> >> >is
> >> >> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly
> >> >cautious
> >> >> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions
> >are
> >> >of no
> >> >> import.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark
> >> >> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> >> >> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consu
> >>
> ><
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/a+Scientist+and+Biomedical+Statistical+Consu?entry=gmail=g
> >
> >> ltant
> >> >> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> >> >> San Antonio, TX 78251
> >> >> mobile: 210-218-2868
> >> >> rmsh...@me.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
> >> >> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference,
> >discussing
> >> >the
> >> >> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some
> >companies
> >> >to
> >> >> avoid them?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where
> >> >almost
> >> >> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be
> >written
> >> >from
> >> >> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several
> >> >emails a
> >> >> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD,
> >> >vandalism,
> >> >> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk"
> >> >page
> >> >> associated with each article, where the world is invited to
> >provide
> >> >> credible source(s).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   Spencer Graves
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
> >> >> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently
> >> >ambiguous in
> >> >> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must
> >> >remain
> >> >> silent'
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R
> >is

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Jeff Newmiller]

The obvious answer is simply to refer to GPL. It isn't necessary to propagate a 
derogatory point of view by finding another word for an incorrect idea.  Try 
re-reading my previous words without trying to hold on to a flawed 
interpretation.

On June 2, 2020 5:33:56 PM PDT, Avraham Adler  wrote:
>Apologies; my intent was not to disparage, but that is the term is used
>in
>the industry and in venues which discuss FLOSS because it reflects that
>the
>addition of one component with that kind of copyleft license causes the
>entire project to need that particular copyleft license. If there is a
>term
>which reflects that mechanism from a discipline other than biology,
>please let me know.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Avi
>
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM Jeff Newmiller
>
>wrote:
>
>> "Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person
>using
>> the term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want
>you to
>> take their contributions out of circulation by using it as the
>foundation
>> of your proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from
>scratch or
>> find some other code that isn't GPL.
>>
>> Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to
>steal
>> something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen.
>> Please refrain from being inflammatory.
>>
>> On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler
>
>> wrote:
>> >IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it
>infects
>> >anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something
>> >like
>> >the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral
>> >copyleft
>> >and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
>> >
>> >Avi
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Spencer,
>> >>
>> >> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the
>> >topic.
>> >> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has
>> >listed
>> >> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and
>> >cannot
>> >> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This
>> >include
>> >> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the
>Google
>> >Search
>> >> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages
>> >dynamically as
>> >> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
>> >> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for
>> >their
>> >> wording.
>> >>
>> >> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However,
>it
>> >is
>> >> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly
>> >cautious
>> >> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions
>are
>> >of no
>> >> import.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>> >> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consu
>>
>
>> ltant
>> >> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>> >> San Antonio, TX 78251
>> >> mobile: 210-218-2868
>> >> rmsh...@me.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
>> >> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference,
>discussing
>> >the
>> >> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some
>companies
>> >to
>> >> avoid them?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where
>> >almost
>> >> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be
>written
>> >from
>> >> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several
>> >emails a
>> >> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD,
>> >vandalism,
>> >> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk"
>> >page
>> >> associated with each article, where the world is invited to
>provide
>> >> credible source(s).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >   Spencer Graves
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> >> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>> >> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently
>> >ambiguous in
>> >> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must
>> >remain
>> >> silent'
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R
>is
>> >> licensed
>> >> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
>> >> corporations
>> >> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related
>> >businesses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R,
>could
>> >you
>> >> have the
>> >> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R
>> >Project?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dirk
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > __
>> >> > R-package-devel@r-project.org
>> >
>> >> mailing list
>> >> > 

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Avraham Adler]

Apologies; my intent was not to disparage, but that is the term is used in
the industry and in venues which discuss FLOSS because it reflects that the
addition of one component with that kind of copyleft license causes the
entire project to need that particular copyleft license. If there is a term
which reflects that mechanism from a discipline other than biology,
please let me know.

Thanks,

Avi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM Jeff Newmiller 
wrote:

> "Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person using
> the term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want you to
> take their contributions out of circulation by using it as the foundation
> of your proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from scratch or
> find some other code that isn't GPL.
>
> Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to steal
> something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen.
> Please refrain from being inflammatory.
>
> On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler 
> wrote:
> >IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it infects
> >anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something
> >like
> >the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral
> >copyleft
> >and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
> >
> >Avi
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
> >
> >> Spencer,
> >>
> >> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the
> >topic.
> >> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has
> >listed
> >> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and
> >cannot
> >> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This
> >include
> >> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google
> >Search
> >> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages
> >dynamically as
> >> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
> >> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for
> >their
> >> wording.
> >>
> >> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it
> >is
> >> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly
> >cautious
> >> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are
> >of no
> >> import.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> >> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consu
> 
> ltant
> >> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> >> San Antonio, TX 78251
> >> mobile: 210-218-2868
> >> rmsh...@me.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
> >> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing
> >the
> >> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies
> >to
> >> avoid them?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where
> >almost
> >> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written
> >from
> >> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several
> >emails a
> >> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD,
> >vandalism,
> >> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk"
> >page
> >> associated with each article, where the world is invited to provide
> >> credible source(s).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >   Spencer Graves
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
> >> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently
> >ambiguous in
> >> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must
> >remain
> >> silent'
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is
> >> licensed
> >> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
> >> corporations
> >> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related
> >businesses.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could
> >you
> >> have the
> >> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R
> >Project?
> >> >>
> >> >> Dirk
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > __
> >> > R-package-devel@r-project.org
> >
> >> mailing list
> >> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel <
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
> >>
> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>
> >> __
> >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> >>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Jeff Newmiller]

"Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person using the 
term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want you to take 
their contributions out of circulation by using it as the foundation of your 
proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from scratch or find some 
other code that isn't GPL.

Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to steal 
something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen. Please 
refrain from being inflammatory.

On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler  wrote:
>IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it infects
>anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something
>like
>the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral
>copyleft
>and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
>
>Avi
>
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
>
>> Spencer,
>>
>> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the
>topic.
>> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has
>listed
>> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and
>cannot
>> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This
>include
>> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google
>Search
>> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages
>dynamically as
>> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
>> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for
>their
>> wording.
>>
>> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it
>is
>> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly
>cautious
>> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are
>of no
>> import.
>>
>> Mark
>> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
>> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>> San Antonio, TX 78251
>> mobile: 210-218-2868
>> rmsh...@me.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
>> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing
>the
>> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies
>to
>> avoid them?
>> >
>> >
>> >   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where
>almost
>> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written
>from
>> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several
>emails a
>> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD,
>vandalism,
>> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk"
>page
>> associated with each article, where the world is invited to provide
>> credible source(s).
>> >
>> >
>> >   Spencer Graves
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently
>ambiguous in
>> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
>> >>
>> >> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must
>remain
>> silent'
>> >>
>> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is
>> licensed
>> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
>> corporations
>> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related
>businesses.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could
>you
>> have the
>> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R
>Project?
>> >>
>> >> Dirk
>> >>
>> >
>> > __
>> > R-package-devel@r-project.org
>
>> mailing list
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel <
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> __
>> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>>

-- 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 2 June 2020 at 18:32, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
| I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the topic. I 
will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has listed GPL-1, 2, 
and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and cannot be used by a 
Google product delivered to outside customers. This include downloadable client 
software and software such as insdie the Google Search Appliance. This includes 
having scripts that load packages dynamically as with “library()” and 
“require()”. Please see 
https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for their 
wording. 
| 
| I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it is their 
position based on what I think is a conservative or overly cautious legal 
interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are of no import.

To a good first approximations, "nobody" on this list is a lawyer.

We are all statisticians, or analysts, or quantitatively-minded coders. Which
means it is the wrong list to have this discussion. Please take it elsewhere.

As for the argument contained in that email of yours, I think it boils down to

 - Company X quotes what you think are good reasons not use license Y.

 - We all read and interpret as we want to. But now you go on to conclude "So
   I should not use license Y."

 - And you then appear to extrapolate to "Nobody should use Y."

It simply does not work that way.  Not from 1) to 2), and (most certainly)
not from 2) to 3). Remember what you ignore from my last email: this is a
list of a GPL (>= 2) licensed project.

But that whole discussion had been had a million times already in a million
places.  This is not one of them.

A few of use came together here to offer help on packaging for R and CRAN, to
move traffic of R-devel (as packaging is generally "not R development", and
to help the CRAN maintainers by taking some load of their inboxes. I am one
of three founders of the list, and continue to help by 'filtering' first
posters. And I have *zero appetite* for this place to become your license
discussion hotspot. Please take it elsewhere, maybe even to a lawyer if you
want real advice.

Thank you, Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Avraham Adler]

IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it infects
anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something like
the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral copyleft
and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.

Avi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp  wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the topic.
> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has listed
> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and cannot
> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This include
> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google Search
> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages dynamically as
> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see
> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for their
> wording.
>
> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it is
> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly cautious
> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are of no
> import.
>
> Mark
> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> San Antonio, TX 78251
> mobile: 210-218-2868
> rmsh...@me.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
> >
> >   Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the
> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to
> avoid them?
> >
> >
> >   I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost
> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written from
> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several emails a
> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD, vandalism,
> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk" page
> associated with each article, where the world is invited to provide
> credible source(s).
> >
> >
> >   Spencer Graves
> >
> >
> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in
> the legal community that some companies avoid them.
> >>
> >> Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain
> silent'
> >>
> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is
> licensed
> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large
> corporations
> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.
> >>
> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you
> have the
> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?
> >>
> >> Dirk
> >>
> >
> > __
> > R-package-devel@r-project.org 
> mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel <
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Kevin R. Coombes]

For academics, aren't those citations the currency in which they are 
supposed to be paid (at least for R packages)?

  Kevin

On 6/2/2020 3:24 PM, Avraham Adler wrote:



On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:04 PM Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:

QUESTION:  How much money have people on this list received for what
they've written?  I've received not one penny for any technical article
I've written or for software contributed to CRAN.

Spencer

Ditto. What's even more annoying is when people clearly use one's package
in their published work and do not cite it, but that is for a different
thread.

Avi

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Spencer Graves]

On 2020-06-02 14:24, Avraham Adler wrote:
> 
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:04 PM Spencer Graves 
>  > wrote:
> > QUESTION:  How much money have people on this list received for what
> > they've written?  I've received not one penny for any technical article
> > I've written or for software contributed to CRAN.
> >
> >        Spencer
>
> Ditto. What's even more annoying is when people clearly use one's 
> package in their published work and do not cite it, but that is for a 
> different thread.


   Might that be a copyright violation or just intellectual laziness 
or in some cases dishonesty but short of a level that could lead to some 
disciplinary action in a university or research organization?


    sg

>
> Avi
>


[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Avraham Adler]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:04 PM Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote:
> QUESTION:  How much money have people on this list received for what
> they've written?  I've received not one penny for any technical article
> I've written or for software contributed to CRAN.
>
>Spencer

Ditto. What's even more annoying is when people clearly use one's package
in their published work and do not cite it, but that is for a different
thread.

Avi

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[R. Mark Sharp]

Adelchi,

Actually, the person recognized wrote the original code for the algorithm and 
he has had other contributors over time that have made several improvements. 
The code I have is not verbatim from his package as it has been adapted for our 
purposes, but he is still the originator of the approach and I am certain he 
and others would recognize the code as being clearly deriviative. I have 
retained some of the same function names or near derivatives of those names. My 
coding style is different but that has not changed the basic logic.

With regard to licensing, we both use MIT, which I strongly prefer. The GPL-2 
and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in the legal community 
that some companies avoid them.

Mark
R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
7526 Meadow Green St.
San Antonio, TX 78251
mobile: 210-218-2868
rmsh...@me.com











> On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:32 AM, Adelchi Azzalini  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this information, Mark.
> 
> Given the phrase "small but important function my package uses", it seems 
> that you included in your package some code, reproducing it verbatim. 
> Do I understand correctly?
> In my case, the code which I am actually using is the R porting of  code
> originally written in another language, namely Matlab.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Adelchi
> 
> 
>> On 1 Jun 2020, at 23:37, R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
>> 
>> Adelchi,
>> 
>> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic 
>> references within the code and documentation for a small but important 
>> function my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the 
>> author of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R section. I added the 
>> following:
>> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
>> 
>> Mark
>> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
>> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>> San Antonio, TX 78251
>> mobile: 210-218-2868
>> rmsh...@me.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Adelchi Azzalini 
>>> Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
>>> Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
>>> To: r-h...@r-project.org
>>> 
>>> The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new function 
>>> which I have ported to R from Matlab.
>>> The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the original 
>>> Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
>>> 
>>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of the 
>>> package, or as contributors, or what else?
>>> Is there a general policy about this matter?
>>> 
>>> Adelchi Azzalini
>>> http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>>> 
>>> __
>>> r-h...@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>> 
> 

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Spencer Graves]

On 2020-06-02 10:14, Adelchi Azzalini wrote:




In  general, "check the license" is a very sensible indication. In the specific 
case, the Matlab code comes with no licence indication - nothing.



  I'm not an attorney, but it's my understanding that "no license 
indication" is a legal minefield:  You can be sued for copyright 
infringement, even with anything that "comes with no license indicate - 
nothing."  For horror stories in that regard, see the Wikipedia article 
on Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture (book) 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)]:  Hollywood has lots 
of money for SLAPP lawsuits, and they've used it to stifle competition.



  To me, this is in blatant violation of the Copyright Clause of 
the US Constitution, which says, "[the United States Congress shall have 
power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing 
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their 
respective Writings and Discoveries."[1]  However, as Lessig documented, 
the US Supreme Court disagreed.



QUESTION:  How much money have people on this list received for what 
they've written?  I've received not one penny for any technical article 
I've written or for software contributed to CRAN.



  Spencer


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause


Best regards,

Adelchi Azzalini
__
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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 02/06/2020 11:14 a.m., Adelchi Azzalini wrote:

Thanks to all people that contributed  to this discussion,
which turned out to be interesting, definitely not something which I expected 
at the beginning.

To avoid verbosity, I restrict myself to two more points.

(1) In case one adopts the indication that all the authors of a portion of code (irrespective of the extension, even in 
other languages)  are "of course now also copyright holders and authors", how should this be translated  in 
the nomenclature of Writing R Extensions (Section 1.1.1 The DESCRIPTION file)?  In this view, "ctb" is the 
more appropriate role, I believe. The "aut" label is not the right option. Otherwise, dozens on CRAN packages 
where "ctb" is extensively used should be amended.

(2) Having read pertaining portions of manuals and pondered messages, I have come to the conclusion that the 
terminology set up in the above-quoted paragraph of "Writing R Extensions" is not always ideal. 
This issue would take a long time and space, so I only indicate one point: the role ‘"cre"’ 
(creator) for the package maintainer. There are many cases where this description does not fit. For instance, 
I have seen packages where an author has designed the package, written the entire code and documentation 
alone, maintained the package for some years, and then passed on the mere maintenance to somebody else; 
definitely, I would not describe the second person as the "creator".


I think the issue was that those roles are not invented by R, they are 
standard MARC roles (reference listed in the ?person help page), and the 
full list contains nothing that is particularly close to the role of 
maintainer.


Creator [cre] is defined as "A person or organization responsible for 
the intellectual or artistic content of a resource".  The common English 
use of the word creator would match that with "originally responsible", 
whereas a maintainer is "currently responsible", so it's not completely 
off-base.


Maybe R shouldn't have tried to use MARC roles, or should have invented 
an additional one.  It's a bit late for that now, though.


Duncan Murdoch






So, I think the safe way is to include the original authors in the author list 
(and check their license carefully).


In  general, "check the license" is a very sensible indication. In the specific 
case, the Matlab code comes with no licence indication - nothing.

I have now submitted mnormt_2.0.0.tar.gz to CRAN, with a comment/query about this issue.  
Let us see what "The CRAN" says. In case you want see the conclusion, the 
outcome should appear at https://cran.r-project.org/package=mnormt in a few days.

Best regards,

Adelchi Azzalini
__
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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Spencer Graves]

  Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the 
alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to 
avoid them?



  I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost 
anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written 
from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources.  I get several 
emails a day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching".  FUD, 
vandalism, etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the 
"Talk" page associated with each article, where the world is invited to 
provide credible source(s).



  Spencer Graves


On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
| The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in the 
legal community that some companies avoid them.

Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is licensed
under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large corporations
from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.

If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you have the
modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?

Dirk



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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Adelchi Azzalini]

Thanks to all people that contributed  to this discussion,
which turned out to be interesting, definitely not something which I expected 
at the beginning.

To avoid verbosity, I restrict myself to two more points.

(1) In case one adopts the indication that all the authors of a portion of code 
(irrespective of the extension, even in other languages)  are "of course now 
also copyright holders and authors", how should this be translated  in the 
nomenclature of Writing R Extensions (Section 1.1.1 The DESCRIPTION file)?  In 
this view, "ctb" is the more appropriate role, I believe. The "aut" label is 
not the right option. Otherwise, dozens on CRAN packages where "ctb" is 
extensively used should be amended.

(2) Having read pertaining portions of manuals and pondered messages, I have 
come to the conclusion that the terminology set up in the above-quoted 
paragraph of "Writing R Extensions" is not always ideal. This issue would take 
a long time and space, so I only indicate one point: the role ‘"cre"’ (creator) 
for the package maintainer. There are many cases where this description does 
not fit. For instance, I have seen packages where an author has designed the 
package, written the entire code and documentation alone, maintained the 
package for some years, and then passed on the mere maintenance to somebody 
else; definitely, I would not describe the second person as the "creator". 

> 
> 
> So, I think the safe way is to include the original authors in the author 
> list (and check their license carefully).

In  general, "check the license" is a very sensible indication. In the specific 
case, the Matlab code comes with no licence indication - nothing.

I have now submitted mnormt_2.0.0.tar.gz to CRAN, with a comment/query about 
this issue.  Let us see what "The CRAN" says. In case you want see the 
conclusion, the outcome should appear at 
https://cran.r-project.org/package=mnormt in a few days.

Best regards,

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
| The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in the 
legal community that some companies avoid them.

Wittgenstein:  'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is licensed
under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large corporations
from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses.

If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you have the
modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project?

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Martin Maechler]

> Adelchi Azzalini 
> on Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:32:37 +0200 writes:

> Thanks for this information, Mark.  Given the phrase
> "small but important function my package uses", it seems
> that you included in your package some code, reproducing
> it verbatim.  Do I understand correctly?  In my case, the
> code which I am actually using is the R porting of code
> originally written in another language, namely Matlab.

> Best wishes,
> Adelchi


Indeed. I would definitely not list the original Matlab authors as
'aut', but just as 'ctb' (= contributor).

e.g., for the 'robustbase' package, I have, among authors@R

  , person("Peter", "Rousseeuw", role="ctb", comment = "Qn and Sn")

Personally, I'd always use a  comment = "..."  tag mentioning
*what* the contributor (or "co-author") has contributed to.

Best,
Martin


>> On 1 Jun 2020, at 23:37, R. Mark Sharp 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Adelchi,
>> 
>> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the
>> typical academic references within the code and
>> documentation for a small but important function my
>> package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add
>> the author of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R
>> section. I added the following: person("Terry",
>> "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
>> 
>> Mark R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.  Data Scientist and Biomedical
>> Statistical Consultant 7526 Meadow Green St.  San
>> Antonio, TX 78251 mobile: 210-218-2868 rmsh...@me.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Adelchi Azzalini  Subject:
>>> [R] a question of etiquette Date: June 1, 2020 at
>>> 11:34:00 AM CDT To: r-h...@r-project.org
>>> 
>>> The new version of a package which I maintain will
>>> include a new function which I have ported to R from
>>> Matlab.  The documentation of this R function indicates
>>> the authors of the original Matlab code, reference to
>>> their paper, URL of the source code.
>>> 
>>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as
>>> co-authors of the package, or as contributors, or what
>>> else?  Is there a general policy about this matter?
>>> 
>>> Adelchi Azzalini http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>>> 
>>> __
>>> r-h...@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and
>>> more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide
>>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide
>>> commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>> 

> __
> 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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[peter dalgaard]

I had similar thoughts initially, but this area is governed by copyright, not 
academic authorship conventions. So 

(a) There is no real parallel to "citation rights" when it comes to software. 
If you use someone else's code, then it is very hard to avoid derived-works 
rules applying.

(b) Copyright transfers to translated works. This is pretty obvious when it 
comes to books, maybe less obvious for computer code, but it certainly wouldn't 
make sense if translation to machine language rendered copyright inapplicable. 
You cannot copyright ideas only their expression, but the question was 
explicitly about translation from Matlab to R.

So, I think the safe way is to include the original authors in the author list 
(and check their license carefully).

-pd


> On 2 Jun 2020, at 15:17 , Martin Morgan  wrote:
> 
> To present a contrary view...
> 
> To me the commentary so far doesn't seem right -- if I were writing an 
> academic paper (I personally think this is a good analogy for many R 
> packages) and elaborating on the ideas of someone else, I would cite their 
> work but I would not add them as an author to my paper. I would not expect 
> the authors of cited work to agree with or take responsibility for my work, 
> which is what authorship (in the publication domain) implies. In the current 
> case there is no reason to think that the author of matlab code would be 
> informed about or willing to vouch for the R implementation. Minimally, in an 
> academic setting I would (be required to) ask whether the individual wished 
> to be an author. 
> 
> Conversely, if an author were to have made a substantive contribution to my 
> package, and objected to the content of the package with their name on it, I 
> would feel obliged to respect their wishes and, e.g., withdraw or, if 
> permitted by licensing, revise or re-publish the paper / package without the 
> author. This makes me think carefully about who actually contributed to the 
> package, rather than merely whose prior work my package builds upon.
> 
> Of course it is necessary to obey licensing terms of the prior work, and 
> important to acknowledge, above and beyond the specific licensing terms, the 
> contributions individuals make.
> 
> Martin Morgan
> 
> On 6/2/20, 5:57 AM, "R-package-devel on behalf of Adelchi Azzalini" 
>  
> wrote:
> 
>The point in question does not refer to copying code, but to code 
> translation.
>Does this make any difference? 
>This was the question which I raised.
> 
>The phrase "As the code is part of the package now," does not seem to 
> apply in this case,
>since the code is actually not there.
> 
>Also, if the authors of the original code (in Matlab) must be included in 
> the Authors@R 
>block of the DESCRIPTION file, should they be labelled as "aut", "cbt", or 
> what?
> 
>Apart from the specific instance  which my earlier question was referring 
> to,
>the view "As the code is part of the package now, therese are of course 
> now also copyright 
>holders and authors of your package" opens another question, closely 
> related but different,
>as it refers to code which is included, not translated. 
>The above-quoted sentence appears to say that anyone who has written any
>portion of code is an author of the package. In this view, who must be 
> labelled "cbt" then?
> 
>Best regards
> 
>Adelchi
> 
> 
>> On 2 Jun 2020, at 01:25, Uwe Ligges  wrote:
>> 
>> If you copy code, you have to make sure that you can use it under the 
>> currrent license of your package, and you have to make sure to declare 
>> copright holders and authors. As the code is part of the package now, 
>> therese are of course now also copyright holders and authors of your package.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Uwe Ligges
>> 
>> On 01.06.2020 23:37, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>>> Adelchi,
>>> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic 
>>> references within the code and documentation for a small but important 
>>> function my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the 
>>> author of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R section. I added the 
>>> following:
>>> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
>>> Mark
>>> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>>> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
>>> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>>> San Antonio, TX 78251
>>> mobile: 210-218-2868
>>> rmsh...@me.com
 Begin forwarded message:
 
 From: Adelchi Azzalini 
 Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
 Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
 To: r-h...@r-project.org
 
 The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new function 
 which I have ported to R from Matlab.
 The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the original 
 Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
 
 Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of the 
 package, or as contributors, 

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Martin Morgan]

To present a contrary view...

To me the commentary so far doesn't seem right -- if I were writing an academic 
paper (I personally think this is a good analogy for many R packages) and 
elaborating on the ideas of someone else, I would cite their work but I would 
not add them as an author to my paper. I would not expect the authors of cited 
work to agree with or take responsibility for my work, which is what authorship 
(in the publication domain) implies. In the current case there is no reason to 
think that the author of matlab code would be informed about or willing to 
vouch for the R implementation. Minimally, in an academic setting I would (be 
required to) ask whether the individual wished to be an author. 

Conversely, if an author were to have made a substantive contribution to my 
package, and objected to the content of the package with their name on it, I 
would feel obliged to respect their wishes and, e.g., withdraw or, if permitted 
by licensing, revise or re-publish the paper / package without the author. This 
makes me think carefully about who actually contributed to the package, rather 
than merely whose prior work my package builds upon.

Of course it is necessary to obey licensing terms of the prior work, and 
important to acknowledge, above and beyond the specific licensing terms, the 
contributions individuals make.

Martin Morgan

On 6/2/20, 5:57 AM, "R-package-devel on behalf of Adelchi Azzalini" 
 
wrote:

The point in question does not refer to copying code, but to code 
translation.
Does this make any difference? 
This was the question which I raised.

The phrase "As the code is part of the package now," does not seem to apply 
in this case,
since the code is actually not there.

Also, if the authors of the original code (in Matlab) must be included in 
the Authors@R 
block of the DESCRIPTION file, should they be labelled as "aut", "cbt", or 
what?

Apart from the specific instance  which my earlier question was referring 
to,
the view "As the code is part of the package now, therese are of course now 
also copyright 
holders and authors of your package" opens another question, closely 
related but different,
as it refers to code which is included, not translated. 
The above-quoted sentence appears to say that anyone who has written any
portion of code is an author of the package. In this view, who must be 
labelled "cbt" then?

Best regards

Adelchi


> On 2 Jun 2020, at 01:25, Uwe Ligges  
wrote:
> 
> If you copy code, you have to make sure that you can use it under the 
currrent license of your package, and you have to make sure to declare copright 
holders and authors. As the code is part of the package now, therese are of 
course now also copyright holders and authors of your package.
> 
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
> 
> On 01.06.2020 23:37, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>> Adelchi,
>> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic 
references within the code and documentation for a small but important function 
my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the author of that 
function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R section. I added the following:
>> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
>> Mark
>> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
>> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>> San Antonio, TX 78251
>> mobile: 210-218-2868
>> rmsh...@me.com
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Adelchi Azzalini 
>>> Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
>>> Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
>>> To: r-h...@r-project.org
>>> 
>>> The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new 
function which I have ported to R from Matlab.
>>> The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the 
original Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
>>> 
>>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of 
the package, or as contributors, or what else?
>>> Is there a general policy about this matter?
>>> 
>>> Adelchi Azzalini
>>> http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>>> 
>>> __
>>> r-h...@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide 
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>>  [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> __
>> 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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Adelchi Azzalini]

Thanks for this information, Mark.

Given the phrase "small but important function my package uses", it seems 
that you included in your package some code, reproducing it verbatim. 
Do I understand correctly?
In my case, the code which I am actually using is the R porting of  code
originally written in another language, namely Matlab.

Best wishes,

Adelchi


> On 1 Jun 2020, at 23:37, R. Mark Sharp  wrote:
> 
> Adelchi,
> 
> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic 
> references within the code and documentation for a small but important 
> function my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the author 
> of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R section. I added the following:
> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
> 
> Mark
> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
> 7526 Meadow Green St.
> San Antonio, TX 78251
> mobile: 210-218-2868
> rmsh...@me.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Adelchi Azzalini 
>> Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
>> Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
>> To: r-h...@r-project.org
>> 
>> The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new function 
>> which I have ported to R from Matlab.
>> The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the original 
>> Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
>> 
>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of the 
>> package, or as contributors, or what else?
>> Is there a general policy about this matter?
>> 
>> Adelchi Azzalini
>> http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>> 
>> __
>> r-h...@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> 

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

Re: [R-pkg-devel] [R] a question of etiquette

[Adelchi Azzalini]

The point in question does not refer to copying code, but to code translation.
Does this make any difference? 
This was the question which I raised.

The phrase "As the code is part of the package now," does not seem to apply in 
this case,
since the code is actually not there.

Also, if the authors of the original code (in Matlab) must be included in the 
Authors@R 
block of the DESCRIPTION file, should they be labelled as "aut", "cbt", or what?

Apart from the specific instance  which my earlier question was referring to,
the view "As the code is part of the package now, therese are of course now 
also copyright 
holders and authors of your package" opens another question, closely related 
but different,
as it refers to code which is included, not translated. 
The above-quoted sentence appears to say that anyone who has written any
portion of code is an author of the package. In this view, who must be labelled 
"cbt" then?

Best regards

Adelchi


> On 2 Jun 2020, at 01:25, Uwe Ligges  wrote:
> 
> If you copy code, you have to make sure that you can use it under the 
> currrent license of your package, and you have to make sure to declare 
> copright holders and authors. As the code is part of the package now, therese 
> are of course now also copyright holders and authors of your package.
> 
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
> 
> On 01.06.2020 23:37, R. Mark Sharp wrote:
>> Adelchi,
>> I have a similar situation where I had made all of the typical academic 
>> references within the code and documentation for a small but important 
>> function my package uses. I was asked by the CRAN reviewers to add the 
>> author of that function to the DESCRIPTION Authors@R section. I added the 
>> following:
>> person("Terry", "Therneau", role = c("aut”))
>> Mark
>> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D.
>> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant
>> 7526 Meadow Green St.
>> San Antonio, TX 78251
>> mobile: 210-218-2868
>> rmsh...@me.com
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Adelchi Azzalini 
>>> Subject: [R] a question of etiquette
>>> Date: June 1, 2020 at 11:34:00 AM CDT
>>> To: r-h...@r-project.org
>>> 
>>> The new version of a package which I maintain will include a new function 
>>> which I have ported to R from Matlab.
>>> The documentation of this R function indicates the authors of the original 
>>> Matlab code, reference to their paper, URL of the source code.
>>> 
>>> Question: is this adequate, or should I include them as co-authors of the 
>>> package, or as contributors, or what else?
>>> Is there a general policy about this matter?
>>> 
>>> Adelchi Azzalini
>>> http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/
>>> 
>>> __
>>> r-h...@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>>  [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> __
>> 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