On 25.03.2017 14:29, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > Dear All, > > thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently > interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source > contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite > limited: I would most likely need to use a remote procedure call API, > and build one side of the API as GPL. But this would make the coupling > much slower and more error-prone. > > I was actually hoping to give modellers very efficient access to big > image analysis data (single cell results in multi-TB range). Currently > R seems not easily combined with the classical closed-source company > model. Are there considerations to release just the part that is > required to build the interface to R under a more permissive license?
I.e. I was thinking of something like this FAQ entry of the GPL: How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only? From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface > All the best, > > Mario > > > > > > On 24.03.2017 15:44, Marc Schwartz wrote: >> See inline... >> >>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer <ma...@emmenlauer.de >>> <mailto:ma...@emmenlauer.de>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I've been following this mailing list for over three years now, but >>> its just now that I have realized that R is licensed under GPL! :-) >>> >>> I'm not a lawyer and I don't want lawyer advice, but I'd like to get >>> your feedback on a license question. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> With the usual IANAL caveat and that I am not speaking on behalf of any other >> parties: >> >> The questions you are posing will require legal advice, so your desire above >> to >> not get legal advice is in direct conflict with what you actually need here. >> >> To your comments below, you cannot change existing licenses on software, R or >> otherwise. That is only something that the copyright holder(s) can do and you >> are not one of them. >> >> The GPL has a FAQ here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html >> >> that you may find enlightening. >> >> A very general statement, which is that if your compiled code (in whatever >> language) does not "link" against R's libraries and does not directly contain >> GPL licensed code (e.g. copying and pasting R Foundation copyrighted source >> code >> into yours), that is one way to steer clear of the viral part of the GPL >> license >> vis-a-vis R, if you want to, but not the only way and not a guarantee either. >> There can be nuances, some of which are covered in the FAQ above. >> >> On the other hand, if your compiled code is linking to R's libraries, which >> you >> seem to suggest may be the case below, then your code, at least the relevant >> parts of it, will need to be licensed under a GPL compatible license. >> >> This again is part of the nuance, in terms of the scope of the impact on your >> code (all or parts) and where legal advice is needed, to steer clear of >> downstream potential issues that could result in legal and financial >> liabilities >> for you. >> >> The issue of linking to third party proprietary libraries is something that >> you >> will have to evaluate with respect to their licenses and any limitations that >> they may impose on your code and it's licensing. >> >> Since you seem to also be suggesting that you may use closed source >> components >> in your package, you should be aware, that vis-a-vis CRAN, you would not be >> able >> to submit your package for distribution via that channel, since CRAN >> submissions >> may not contain pre-compiled binaries or similar and the entire package must >> conform to a compatible open source license. Thus, if you go down that path, >> you >> would have to find other distribution channels for your package, such as a >> company web site, etc. >> >> None of the above should be construed as legal advice and if you plan to go >> down >> the path of offering a commercial service that you would charge clients for, >> a >> lawyer is mandatory to provide legal guidance and to assess your business >> risks. >> Even if your actual R related package is offered free of charge, while >> generating revenue through other means, if you should run afoul of software >> licensing requirements, that can still leave you open to financial >> liabilities >> and put your business and even personal assets at risk. >> >> Regards, >> >> Marc Schwartz >> >> >>> My goal is to develop commercial >>> software for image analysis of biomedical samples that may be used >>> i.e. in academic institutions. Since I've been an academic software >>> developer for long, a priority for me is to make the data and tools >>> easily accessibly for other developers. I have toyed with the idea to >>> make a (free) R package that can very efficiently fetch data from the >>> database and push back results for visualization. To clarify: I am >>> not using R in my software. I'd rather like the institutions of my >>> customers to have open (internal) access to their data. >>> >>> Now for the question: To efficiently get the data into R, I assume a >>> package (possibly in C or C++) is the most reasonable way? If yes, >>> would such a package automatically be infected by the GPL? If the >>> package links to (proprietary closed source) libraries to efficiently >>> access the data, would the libraries in turn be infected? >>> >>> I'm asking this very naiively because I understand statement [1] in >>> such a way that it is generally encouraged to make data available in >>> R. Obviously open source is the preferred way, but my understanding >>> is that also closed source extensions can add value and may be >>> welcome. >>> >>> I was therefore hoping that somebody has prior experience in this >>> regard, or can shed further light on statement [1]. Is the R-C- >>> interface infectious per se, even when data flows only into R, not >>> vice versa? If its infectious, could just the very core of R be >>> licensed additionally under a non-infectious license? >>> >>> Furthermore, can I avoid infecting my full software stack, for example >>> by making only the package open source under a permissive license? Are >>> there any guidelines how to legally bridge between the proprietary and >>> the R-world? I guess other people have tried this before, can someone >>> share his/her experience? >>> >>> [1] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-May/053248.html >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Mario Emmenlauer >>> ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel