Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[John Myles White]

That seems like the perfect language.

 -- John

On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Ted Fujimoto  wrote:

> 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  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  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  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? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

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 > 
> 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  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  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? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >
>
>
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[John Myles White]

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  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  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  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? 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

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 
> > 
> 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  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? 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

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 
decline to help if they choose to do so. I think 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 
> > 
> 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  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? 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Tom Short]

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  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  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?
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

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  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?
>>
>>
>>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

Thanks John! Another reason why I brought up the last question is the fear 
that following an R-style implementation will produce a Julia package that 
is riddled with sub-optimal legacy code. But I guess Julia is not mature 
enough that one could make such conclusions.

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 5:59:58 PM UTC-7, 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 > 
> 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?
>
>
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Jake Bolewski]

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 > 
> 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?
>
>
>

Re: [julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[John Myles White]

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  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?

[julia-users] Yet another licensing question: Building a Julia version of an R package

[Ted Fujimoto]

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?