[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 <avraham.adler at gmail.com> 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 <jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> 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
<avraham.adler at gmail.com>
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 <rmsharp at me.com> 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
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&source=g>
ltant
7526 Meadow Green St. San Antonio, TX 78251 mobile: 210-218-2868 rmsharp at me.com
On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves <
spencer.graves at 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 at r-project.org
<mailto:R-package-devel at r-project.org>
mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
-- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.