Hi Chris, Just for clarification, there are at least two aspects that affect how you can license your package. A) Do you distribute `bar` with your package, or are you simply calling routines in `bar`? B) What is the exact license of `bar`? C) Is there a reason for this secrecy of `bar`? If we knew what it was, somebody on this list might have experience with it or similar.
If `bar` is not freely available, it doesn't seem your package would be accepted to CRAN (do correct me if I am wrong). Kindly, Stefan McKinnon Hoj-Edwards Stefan McKinnon Høj-Edwards ph.d. Genetics +44 (0)776 231 2464 +45 2888 6598 Skype: stefan_edwards 2018-01-19 8:31 GMT+00:00 Chris Brien <chris.br...@unisa.edu.au>: > Dear list members, > > I have come to realize that my understanding of free software licensing > was somewhat naïve. The problem is that I now find that, in spite of > spending quite a bit of time reading about various licenses on the web, I > have been unable to identify a suitable license for the situation that I > have with one of my packages. > > I am solely responsible for the development of my package, `foo' say. > However, most functions in `foo' call functions from a proprietary package, > `bar' say , the latter not being available from an online software > repository and consisting of R functions that call routines in a library. > That is, `foo' enhances `bar'. > > I had thought that a GPL licence was appropriate because (1) `foo' is free > software and (ii) I do not distribute `bar' with `foo'. That is, I am > distributing only free software. However, I have come to understand that > this is not the case because a free software package linked with a > proprietary package does not satisfy the requirements to be GPL. > > I have found it difficult to work out a license that might cover my > package because much of the discussion online covers cases that are the > opposite of mine i.e. cases where `foo' is proprietary and `bar' is > freeware. I can appreciate why this needs to be avoided. > > I can also understand that a disadvantage of what I am doing is that it > tends to entrench the use of such software. While I agree that it is > desirable that `bar' be replaced with free software, unfortunately `bar' > has functionality that is currently infeasible to replace with free > software. At least I am not profiting from the enhancements that I have > made. > > I am hoping that someone more experienced in software development and > licensing issues can suggest a license type that might be suitable for > `foo' such that at least the enhancements that it incorporates remain > `free'? > > Cheers, > > Chris Brien > > Adjunct Senior Lecturer in Statistics > ----- > Phenomics and Bioinformatics Research Centre > University of South Australia > GPO Box 2471 > ADELAIDE 5001 South Australia > Phone: +61 8 8302 5535 Fax: +61 8 8302 5785 > Email: chris.br...@unisa.edu.au > WEB page: <http://people.unisa.edu.au/Chris.Brien> > CRICOS No 00121B > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > 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
