I think Tom’s point is that most people prefer that you assist them rather than offer them the chance to assist you.
— John On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Ted Fujimoto <tftur...@gmail.com> wrote: > I probably was not clear in my response to Jake but what I meant was that I > would ask the authors if they wanted to use the GPL because they felt that > license was most appropriate. If not, I would then give them the choice to > assist me at any level they choose with a Julia version of their package > under an MIT license (since they are academics, my guess is that they would > want to be a part of popularizing their work with different versions), and > they can decline to help if they choose to do so. I think it would be best > not to keep them in the dark. > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:47:08 AM UTC-7, tshort wrote: > 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 <tftu...@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? > >>> > >>> > >
