Regarding R licensing usage guidance

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] Re: [FORGED] Re: Regarding R licensing usage guidance

Rolf Turner

I despair!!!

But this discourse has gone on far too long already, so I shall say no more.

cheers,

Rolf

On 25/07/19 10:33 AM, Tierney, Luke wrote:

> Thanks Roy -- I was about to write along the same lines.
>
> Best,
>
> luke
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal via R-help wrote:
>
>> Hi Rolf:
>>
>> As they say,  do read the posting guide:
>>
>>> Good manners: Remember that customs differ. Some people are very direct. Others surround everything they say with hedges and apologies. Be tolerant. Rudeness is never warranted, but sometimes `read the manual’ is the appropriate response. Don’t waste time discussing such matters on the list. Ad hominem comments are absolutely out of place.
>>
>>
>> -Roy
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Rolf Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/07/19 4:36 AM, Weiwen Ng, MPH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's one way to phrase your reply:
>>>> "I'd recommend you search Google. For example, the search string
>>>> "proprietary use GPL" produces one hit that's clearly relevant to you:
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> This method is more neutrally worded. It doesn't insult the original
>>>> poster. It doesn't assume the poster had bad intent.
>>>> Instead, you chose to phrase it thus:
>>>> "Your internet skills are pathetic. Search Google for "proprietary use gpl"
>>>> and the first hit is ...  Note that there are (at least) three obvious
>>>> alternatives if there is any question in your case ...   I think your
>>>> desperation to steal the hard work of the various R contributors seems
>>>> quite odious."
>>>> Think about the overall tone of your post. Consider also that someone who
>>>> agrees with you substantive argument said that your comments were "often
>>>> (almost always?) a bit rough about the edges."
>>>
>>> Yeah, but Jeff's rough-about-the-edges phrasing is much more colourful, and colourful is *GOOD*.  There is far too much bland "Shhhh. We *mustn't* offend anybody" content in current discourse.  Tell it like it is!  Ripley into people!  If the recipient can't take the heat, he or she should get out of the kitchen!
>>>
>>> See also fortunes::fortune(87).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Rolf Turner
>>>
>>> P.S.  Jeff makes a huge and extremely useful contribution to R-help.  He gives generously of time and effort to solve beginners' problems.  They should appreciate the time and effort and not whinge about being offended.
>>>
>>> R. T.

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FORGED] Re: Regarding R licensing usage guidance

Bob Rudis
In reply to this post by Andrew Robinson-2
Hey Anamika,

I only caught the tail end of what became an off-topic thread, but backed up a bit to your original q. If I'm duplicating anything previous, apologies.

If you are going to ship your "product" to end users directly (vs provide via an API or web application) I'm not sure how you get around the "you have to ship your source code" problem (regardless of license issues). Even the best obfuscation is fairly easily overcome these days.

On a different note, apart from {RTextTools} and {tabulizer} (both of which aren't on CRAN so I couldn't just run a script against my mirror) you have the follow package licensing dependencies as well:

   License                                 n
 1 GPL-3                                   7
 2 MIT + file LICENSE                      7
 3 GPL (>= 2)                              5
 4 GPL-2                                   4
 5 GPL-2 | GPL-3                           4
 6 BSD 2-clause License + file LICENSE     1
 7 BSD_3_clause + file LICENSE             1
 8 file LICENSE                            1
 9 GPL-2 | file LICENSE                    1
10 MPL-2.0 | file LICENSE                  1

So, if you do end up distributing something you're going to need to plan for adhering to the requirements of each of those when it comes to how you have to message the use of them (and license for them) to end-users.

If this is a pay-for piece of software you're hoping to distribute directly to end users then I'd highly suggest seeking legal assistance from a firm that specializes in reviewing licensing situations. They abound these days and it'll ultimately be worth the expense (it shouldn't be too bad).

-Bob

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Andrew Robinson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1.
> *R-3.4.4 *
> 2. *'spacyr'*
> 3.
> *'jsonlite' *
> 4.
> *'lubridate' *
> 5.
> *'data.table' *
> 6.
> *'png' *
> 7.
> *'maps' *
> 8.
> *'countrycode' *
> 9.
> *'humaniformat' *
> 10.
> *'ngram' *
> 11.
> *'stringr' *
> 12.
> *'slam' *
> 13.
> *'tm' *
> 14.
> *'lsa' *
> 15.
> *'RTextTools' *
> 16.
> *'stringi' *
> 17.
> *'plumber' *
> 18. *"Rook"*
> 19. *"pdftools"*
> 20. *'tokenizers'*
> 21. *'zoo'*
> 22. *"tidyr"*
> 23. *"reqres"*
> 24. *"rJava"*
> 25. *"tiff"*
> 26. *"splitstackshape"*
> 27. *"stringdist"*
> 28. *"RJSONIO"*
> 29. *"ropensci/tabulizer"*
> 30. *"staplr"*
> 31. *"SparseM"*
> 32. *"randomForest"*
> 33. *"e1071"*
> 34. *"ipred"*
> 35. *"caTools"*
> 36. *RCMD INSTALL maxent_1.3.3.1.tar.gz*
> 37. *RCMD INSTALL tree_1.0-39.tar.gz*
> 38. *RCMD INSTALL RTextTools_1.4.2.tar.gz*

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
12