[R-pkg-devel] Licensing of an R package
Hi Brian, Fair point that even commercial packages have licenses. In this case you can do neither of the things that you suggest might be possible. It is the reason that I have never contemplated distributing `bar' with `foo'. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: R-package-devel [mailto:r-package-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Brian G. Peterson Sent: 19 January 2018 20:56 To: r-package-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Licensing of an R package Chris, on C) even commercial packages have licenses. If the commercial package contains a linkable software library, that license is very important in this discussion, because it tells you (us) what you can do with that library. It may say that you can distribute binary code you build with that library, or that you can link other proprietary software to it, or that you can do neither of those things. So the exact license of 'bar' is important to this discussion as well. There are a number of R packages on CRAN that link to commercial libraries or require a commercial library to be available (such as optimization routines), but the exact license of the commercial library needs to be known, and the desired behavior needs to be permitted. Regards, Brian
On 01/19/2018 04:19 AM, Chris Brien wrote:
Hi Stefan, Here are the answers: A) No, I am simply calling routines. B) By proprietary I mean that it is a commercial package. C) No, it seemed better to use short, distinctive names for the two packages and to focus on the essential issues, namely that `bar' is a commercial package and that `foo' is not. Thanks for your interest. Cheers, Chris From: stefan.mckinnon.edwards at gmail.com [mailto:stefan.mckinnon.edwards at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stefan McKinnon H?j-Edwards Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018 7:58 PM To: Chris Brien Cc: r-package-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Licensing of an R package Hi Chris, Just for clarification, there are at least two aspects that affect how you can license your package. A) Do you distribute `bar` with your package, or are you simply calling routines in `bar`? B) What is the exact license of `bar`? C) Is there a reason for this secrecy of `bar`? If we knew what it was, somebody on this list might have experience with it or similar. If `bar` is not freely available, it doesn't seem your package would be accepted to CRAN (do correct me if I am wrong). Kindly, Stefan McKinnon Hoj-Edwards Stefan McKinnon H?j-Edwards ph.d. Genetics +44 (0)776 231 2464 +45 2888 6598 Skype: stefan_edwards 2018-01-19 8:31 GMT+00:00 Chris Brien <Chris.Brien at unisa.edu.au>: Dear list members, I have come to realize that my understanding of free software licensing was somewhat na?ve. The problem is that I now find that, in spite of spending quite a bit of time reading about various licenses on the web, I have been unable to identify a suitable license for the situation that I have with one of my packages. I am solely responsible for the development of my package, `foo' say. However, most functions in `foo' call functions from a proprietary package, `bar' say , the latter not being available from an online software repository and consisting of R functions that call routines in a library. That is, `foo' enhances `bar'. I had thought that a GPL licence was appropriate because (1) `foo' is free software and (ii) I do not distribute `bar' with `foo'. That is, I am distributing only free software.? However, I have come to understand that this is not the case because a free software package linked with a proprietary package does not satisfy the requirements to be GPL. I have found it difficult to work out a license that might cover my package because much of the discussion online covers cases that are the opposite of mine i.e. cases where `foo' is proprietary and `bar' is freeware. I can appreciate why this needs to be avoided. I can also understand that a disadvantage of what I am doing is that it tends to entrench the use of such software. While I agree that it is desirable that `bar' be replaced with free software, unfortunately `bar' has functionality that is currently infeasible to replace with free software. At least I am not profiting from the enhancements that I have made. I am hoping that someone more experienced in software development and licensing issues can suggest a license type that might be suitable for `foo' such that at least the enhancements that it incorporates remain `free'? Cheers, ? Chris Brien Adjunct Senior Lecturer in Statistics ----- Phenomics and Bioinformatics Research Centre University of South Australia GPO Box 2471 ADELAIDE? 5001? South Australia Phone:? +61 8 8302 5535? ?Fax:? +61 8 8302 5785 Email:?? Chris.Brien at unisa.edu.au WEB page:? <http://people.unisa.edu.au/Chris.Brien> CRICOS No 00121B
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
-- Brian G. Peterson http://braverock.com/brian/ Ph: 773-459-4973 IM: bgpbraverock ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel