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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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:

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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