Skip to content

Non-free packages in R-Forge

7 messages · Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, David Winsemius, Marc Schwartz +3 more

Original
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
# 
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
cleaner way.

The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
project whose sole purpose is to link R with non-free software. This
looks like endorsement of non-free software, which is contrary to the
aims of the GNU project, of which R today claims to be a part.

There are several solutions, but the only workable ones I see are to
either sever ties with the GNU project, clearly remove the endorsement
of the non-free project, or to make the non-free project free. Of
these, it is my sincere hope that the last one happens.

That is all.

- Jordi G. H.
David Winsemius
#
On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
Are you aware that R has two other major trunks besides the Linux one?  
Those of us with Mac or Windows hardware/software devices might be  
threatened with discontinuation of our access to R if your logic  
prevails.

            

      
      
      
    

        
This entire argument seems quasi-religious. You seem to be claiming  
that there is a "non-free" moral and legal sinfulness that is passed  
by way of links on websites. There do not seem to be any boundaries to  
this process that are discernable from your writings.

            

      
      
      
    

        
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Marc Schwartz
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:

        

            

      
      
      
    

        
It seems to me that you have a rather RMS-like mindset, as opposed to Simon's more pragmatic approach, which frankly, as a FOSS supporter and useR of R for 10 years, I prefer.

If you feel so strongly about your position, then take it up with the FSF and pursue it there!

This is degenerating into a philosophical debate, based on your opinion alone, which is not going to be resolved in this forum.

Move on.

Marc Schwartz

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Let me give a little more context of why this is important.

As you can read in this thread:

    http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAPHS2gwmxJGF9Cy8%3DSEGasQcVRg_Lqu-
ndCdVhO-r1LJsRQGuA%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=octave-dev

The author of MOSEK basically created a non-free library and wants to
link it to both Octave and R. Normally this would be a GPL violation;
however the author of MOSEK has worked around the GPL by making a
wrapper and making the user do the linking, effectively neutering the
copyleft of the GPL (and yes, the GPL is not nice, and this
non-niceness of the GPL is a feature).

I am trying to reject this in Octave. We do not want to condone the
proliferation of non-free software. Instead, I invite the makers of
MOSEK to make the library free. However, the author has pointed out
that R has accepted his plugin, why can't Octave?

And this is why I appeal to the GNUness of R, if it still has it. If
Octave and R are part of the same organisation, we have to stand
together on this, and together pressure the maker of MOSEK to release
MOSEK as free software and stop trying to work around the GPL with
wrappers and avoiding binary distribution.

I am inviting R to work together with Octave on this. If we are both
using the GPL and both part of GNU, what good is it if the GPL can be
worked around and if we don't both stand for the same principles?

This isn't about prohibiting R from running on Windows or Mac (Octave
also runs on both because it's the only way to reach those users), nor
about meaningless ideology, but about bringing about a very practical
result: more free software for the community, more source for
everyone.

So, please, users and developers and overseers of R, work with us. If
we are on the same team, can we work towards the same goals?

- Jordi G. H.

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Kevin Coombes
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
You are, of course, missing the obvious solution, which is to do nothing.

The "endorsement" of a non-free project seems to me to reside only in 
your imagination.  The primary product produced by "The R Project for 
Statistical Computing" is the statistical software environment R, which 
is released under the GPL.  It is free software under anyone's 
definition.  One can safely infer that members of the R Project clearly 
endorse the goals of the GNU Project (as you can see, for example, from 
the fact that the only hyperlinks from the "What is R?" web page point 
to FSF or GNU).  I think that there is no chance that members of the R 
project would voluntarily "sever its ties with GNU" over this issue.

It's also not clear that there is any formal process for something 
becoming "a GNU project". If there were, you could then go to the GNU 
organization or to FSF and convince them to take some action to force 
the R project to stop calling itself a GNU project.  (I strongly suspect 
that there are neither copyright nor trademark nor other enforceable 
agreements to cause anything to happen in that regard.)

Now, the web site for the R project does point from its "related 
projects" page to R-Forge as a framework where packages that work with R 
can be developed.  It also displays prominent links to CRAN and to 
Bioconductor as locations where users can obtain R packages.  In that 
sense, I would be willing to agree that the R project "endorses" 
R-Rorge, CRAN, and Bioconductor.

However, I strongly object to the idea that this includes an endorsement 
of all (or even *any*) of the packages developed or hosted on those 
three other sites.  There are plenty of R packages in all of those 
locations that are provided under licenses other than GPL, LGPL, or 
PAL.  Some of those licenses are clearly non-free (in both the liberty 
and dollar senses).

For example, I use the mclust package (available from CRAN) all the 
time.  The license for this package requires an annual payment of a 
licensing fee for non-academic use, which limits modification and 
redistribution.  I have developed my own packages that depend on 
mclust.  The code that I wrote is available under the Perl Artistic 
License.  But if anyone wants to use my pacakge, they still have to 
conform to the terms of use defined by the license for mclust, on which 
my package depends.  I don't think that the University of Washington 
shoudl be prevented from specifying the license terms it wants for 
mclust.  And I don't think users (academic or otherwise) would get any 
beenfits if mclust was prevented from being made available through CRAN.

As far as I can tell, the situation with mclust is directly analogous to 
the situation you are complaining about with MOSEK being hosted at R-Forge.

Here's my suggestion. Stop trying to prevent users who want to talk to 
MOSEK from R from getting a package that will accomplish that task. Your 
real problem seems to be that MOSEK is not free.  So do what Stallman 
did when he objected to the fact that UNIX was not free. (Or MOTIF. Or 
lots of other stuff.) Get some developers together, work in a clean 
environment where they won't violate any copyright in the existing code, 
and develop a free alternative.

     Kevin

        
On 11/18/2011 12:00 PM, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Spencer Graves
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Jordi:


       Why do you want to reduce demand for Octave by forcing people who 
want to link to a commercial product to abandon Octave?


       Are you familiar with Shapiro and Varian (1998) Information 
Rules:  A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Bus. Sch. 
Pr.)?  Varian is now the Chief Economist at Google, and his ideas seem 
to have contributed substantially to their success.  The book explains 
that if you want to increase the market for your product, you need to 
make it as easy as possible for potential users to use (for as many 
different purposes).


       I've used Matlab, and I want to start using Octave.  If I can 
connect from only one of these products to some third party software 
that I'd like also to use, that's a reason to use the more flexible 
product.


       Spencer

        
On 11/18/2011 10:32 AM, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    
5 days later

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Dominick Samperi
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
2011/11/18 Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>:

            

      
      
      
    

        
The book focuses on penetration pricing and lock-in as tools to
maximize profit, not as a means to support the free software community.
In a paper written a few years later the same authors note: "The very idea
of having "conditions" accompanying a "free" good
confuses some people, and opponents of open source software have done
their best to amplify that confusion." (See Linux Adoption
in the Public Sector: An Economic Analysis, Dec. 2003.)

I think what the original poster (Jordi) is concerned about is that there
are conditions (spelled out by FSF/GPL) that do not seem to be followed
in practice. See, for example,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

It is important to remember that the FSF/GPL conditions are in addition
to Copyright law, that Copyleft is an extension of Copyright, not in
opposition to it. In particular, the Copyright holders of software released
under GPL are free to release the same software (possibly with a
few extensions) as a proprietary product, without including any
source code. The Copyright holders are also free to permit others
to violate the terms of the FSF/GPL, because only the Copyright
holders are in a legal position to enforce those terms. (In practice
things are complicated by the viral nature of GPL and by the
growing set of Copyright holders over time.)

This may not seem "fair" to some, but I think it is legal (check with
a lawyer to be sure).

Dominick