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 <mdowle at mdowle.plus.com>wrote:

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]]

--
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]]