Instead of asking the package authors to do extra work, it might be better to offer to convert their package to a Julia package. Then, you can ask the authors if the converted package could be released with an MIT license.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Ted Fujimoto <tftur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Jake! I'll also ask if they are willing to participate in the Julia > community by implementing a Julia version too! :) > > > On Sunday, March 23, 2014 6:14:33 PM UTC-7, Jake Bolewski wrote: >> >> Another strategy is to contact the authors directly and ask them if they >> would consider relicensing their work. Many people do not really consider >> the implications of choosing one license over another and just go with a >> default. >> >> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:59:58 PM UTC-4, John Myles White wrote: >>> >>> Yes, including the same GPL-3 license is sufficient if you've derived >>> your work from a GPL-3 project. You may also need to include the original >>> headers of the files if they contain attribution information that you are >>> required to preserve. >>> >>> I don't think there's anything dishonest about creating a GPL-3 package. >>> If you would like to release something under a permissive license, you'll >>> have to implement your code from scratch without ever reading any of the >>> code from a GPL or closed-source implementation. >>> >>> What's most beneficial depends on context. Many businesses prohibit GPL >>> software, so many people in the Julia (and Python) communities intentionally >>> produce MIT or BSD software. But Julia benefits a lot from having GPL >>> packages when there's no reasonable alternative. >>> >>> -- John >>> >>> On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Ted Fujimoto <tftu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm trying to familiarize myself with Julia by seeing how it compares to >>> other languages. I would also like to "open-source" my code if it seems >>> useful to others. Unfortunately, licenses have made this process >>> complicated. >>> >>> A tangible example: >>> >>> I am trying to implement a Julia version of the R package pcalg >>> (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pcalg/index.html). Like most R >>> packages, it is protected under the GPL-3 license. Also, the license states >>> that it would consider my implementation a "modification" of the R package. >>> Say I feel that my project is ready to be open-sourced and put it in a >>> github repository. Is it enough to follow the RmathDist.jl lead and do the >>> following?: >>> 1. Include the same license in the repository. >>> 2. Cite the R package I modified. >>> >>> A more long term question: I'm guessing a better (and more honest) >>> alternative to the above would be to implement the relevant algorithms by >>> looking at the pseudocode and applying it in a way that is friendlier to >>> future improvements using idiomatic Julia (if it exists yet). After that, >>> open-source it under the MIT license. Would this be a more beneficial >>> approach than the "Julia version of an R package" approach? >>> >>> >
