IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it infects anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something like the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral copyleft and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2.
Avi On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp <rmsh...@me.com> wrote: > Spencer, > > I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the topic. > I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has listed > GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and cannot > be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This include > downloadable client software and software such as insdie the Google Search > Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages dynamically as > with “library()” and “require()”. Please see > https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for their > wording. > > I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, it is > their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly cautious > legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions are of no > import. > > Mark > R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D. > Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consultant > 7526 Meadow Green St. > San Antonio, TX 78251 > mobile: 210-218-2868 > rmsh...@me.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves < > spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote: > > > > Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, discussing the > alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some companies to > avoid them? > > > > > > I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where almost > anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be written from > a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. I get several emails a > day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching". FUD, vandalism, > etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk" page > associated with each article, where the world is invited to provide > credible source(s). > > > > > > Spencer Graves > > > > > > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote: > >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently ambiguous in > the legal community that some companies avoid them. > >> > >> Wittgenstein: 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain > silent' > >> > >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R is > licensed > >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large > corporations > >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related businesses. > >> > >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, could you > have the > >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R Project? > >> > >> Dirk > >> > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-package-devel@r-project.org <mailto:R-package-devel@r-project.org> > mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel < > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel> > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
