OK. How about asking if I could assist *them* on a Julia version under an MIT license? The result is the same but I guess language does make a difference...
On Monday, March 24, 2014 9:08:23 AM UTC-7, John Myles White wrote: > > 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 <tftu...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > 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? >> >>> >> >>> >> > > > >
