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
