Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Marc Schwartz]

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Mario Emmenlauer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 



Hi,

As per the language included in the section of the FAQ that you reference 
above, if you want to go down that path, you would have to engage in formally 
communicating with the R Foundation, as the copyright holders of R, to solicit 
their formal position, which would be final. Note that depending upon the 
specifics, there may be other parties that would also have to render a 
decision, since other individuals also hold copyrights to included code in the 
standard R distribution and may or may not have given approval to the R 
Foundation to act on their behalf:

  https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/doc/COPYRIGHTS

If you wanted to pursue that avenue, you should communicate with the current R 
Foundation Co-Presidents:

  Simon Urbanek (simon.urba...@r-project.org)
  Martyn Plummer (plumm...@iarc.fr)

were they can elect to engage the Board of the R Foundation in further 
discussion.

To the broader issue of the "stance" of the community at large vis-a-vis closed 
source software, you will find, as in any community, a spectrum of positions. 

There are, as you may be aware, commercial versions of R, that have been built 
upon the standard open source R distribution, which offer sufficient additional 
value that their customers are willing to pay for them. In some cases, these 
may include closed source components. A parallel of sorts would be a community 
based, open source version of a Linux server distribution (e.g. CentOS) versus 
a commercial offering (e.g. RHEL), where the latter has paid support options 
and other value added components and services that are revenue generating. In 
these commercial cases, as I referenced in my prior reply, legal counsel with 
expertise in open source licensing and intellectual property rights, will have 
rendered formal legal opinions to provide guidance and comfort that these 
for-profit businesses remain in conformance with license requirements to stay 
clear of any liabilities. No ethical business, in their right mind, would move 
forward without that.

However, at the end of the day, the only position that is relevant to your 
issue is the formal position of the R Foundation itself, since it holds the 
copyright to R as officially distributed and would, if needed, take action in 
the case of license non-conformance.

Others in the community, myself included, can offer opinions, but they hold no 
relevance to your situation, since they are not legally binding. In other 
words, we are not in a position to say that you can or cannot proceed with your 
plan. You can gain some insights, as others have referenced, by using examples 
of what appear to be acceptable implementations. But each situation can have 
sufficient differences as to perhaps not be exactly applicable to yours. Thus, 
part of the potential challenge for you would be to provide sufficient detail 
on your exact implementation plans to allow an opinion to be rendered that 
narrowly covers those details, as opposed to a more generic model.

Regards,

Marc Schwartz

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Mario Emmenlauer]

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 >> > 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

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Mario Emmenlauer]

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?

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 > > 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 t

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Michael Sumner]

Have the lawyers look at Microsoft R, it seems the license is not very
catching ultimately.

Perhaps you could use a similar ruse, or even align to that project instead.

Cheers, Mike

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 00:54 Mario Emmenlauer  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. 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
>
-- 
Dr. Michael Sumner
Software and Database Engineer
Australian Antarctic Division
203 Channel Highway
Kingston Tasmania 7050 Australia

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Joris Meys]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel  wrote:

>
> On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote:
> | attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do,
> | is not accepted on CRAN.
>
> He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN.
>
> He asked whether he can use the open source work in his closed source
> product.
>

He actually asked "Are there any guidelines how to legally bridge between
the proprietary and the R-world? "

For me CRAN is a rather important part of the R world, especially when you
want your software to be used in the academic world.
So I thought it would be useful to add that information to the other
valuable information given by others.

-- 
Joris Meys
Statistical consultant

Ghent University
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Department of Mathematical Modelling, Statistics and Bio-Informatics

tel :  +32 (0)9 264 61 79
joris.m...@ugent.be
---
Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 24 March 2017 at 17:04, Joris Meys wrote:
| attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do,
| is not accepted on CRAN.

He never said he wanted to upload to CRAN.

He asked whether he can use the open source work in his closed source product.

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Joris Meys]

The key difference being that while not under the GPL, highcharter is still
open source. There isn't a single compiled library in the entire package.
WinBUGS otoh is closed source (although there is an open source version of
it, OpenBUGS). As far as I understood, CRAN doesn't accept packages
containing any binary executable code without the proper source files
attached. So including the closed source libraries as Mario wanted to do,
is not accepted on CRAN.

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html#Source-packages

On a sidenote: I'm not a legal expert, and I might have been misusing the
term "proprietary software" where I should've written "closed source". My
apologies if I confused anybody doing so.

Cheers

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Ganz, Carl  wrote:

> There are also packages like highcharter, which package proprietary
> software without a license, but it is incumbent on the user to respect the
> license of the underlying library.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Joris
> Meys
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:14 AM
> To: Marc Schwartz
> Cc: R-Devel
> Subject: Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?
>
> My humble 2 nonlegal cents:
>
> There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary
> software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are
> a lot more of these.
>
> All of these use essentially the same idea:
> - create the package under a standard GPL license
> - use the (command line) interface provided by the proprietary software to
> connect with it, eg by calls to sytem(). That's exaclty how R2WinBUGS
> operates. It doesn't contain a single closed source library to achieve
> this, all those are kept within WinBUGS itself.
>
> So taking the route others took before you seems the way forward to me.
>
> Cheers
> Joris
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Marc Schwartz 
> wrote:
>
> > See inline...
> >
> > > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer 
> > 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 <
> > 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

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Ganz, Carl]

There are also packages like highcharter, which package proprietary software 
without a license, but it is incumbent on the user to respect the license of 
the underlying library. 

-Original Message-
From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Joris Meys
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:14 AM
To: Marc Schwartz
Cc: R-Devel
Subject: Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

My humble 2 nonlegal cents:

There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary 
software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are a 
lot more of these.

All of these use essentially the same idea:
- create the package under a standard GPL license
- use the (command line) interface provided by the proprietary software to 
connect with it, eg by calls to sytem(). That's exaclty how R2WinBUGS operates. 
It doesn't contain a single closed source library to achieve this, all those 
are kept within WinBUGS itself.

So taking the route others took before you seems the way forward to me.

Cheers
Joris

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Marc Schwartz  wrote:

> See inline...
>
> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer 
> 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 < 
> 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 mak

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Joris Meys]

My humble 2 nonlegal cents:

There are multiple packages that make the link between R and proprietary
software. One example is R2WinBUGS which connects to WinBUGS, but there are
a lot more of these.

All of these use essentially the same idea:
- create the package under a standard GPL license
- use the (command line) interface provided by the proprietary software to
connect with it, eg by calls to sytem(). That's exaclty how R2WinBUGS
operates. It doesn't contain a single closed source library to achieve
this, all those are kept within WinBUGS itself.

So taking the route others took before you seems the way forward to me.

Cheers
Joris

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Marc Schwartz  wrote:

> See inline...
>
> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer 
> 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 <
> 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 

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Marc Schwartz]

See inline...

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Mario Emmenlauer  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 

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Robert McGehee]

I have no direct experience in this regard, but this FAQ seems to answer your 
question. 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

I read this to mean that the answer may be different depending on whether your 
code links against R libraries or simply uses R as an interpreter.

PS. "Infect" is an interesting choice of words in your email :)
--Robert

-Original Message-
From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Mario 
Emmenlauer
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:53 AM
To: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?


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. 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

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

[Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

[Mario Emmenlauer]

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. 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