Stat 585 - What License when?

Prompt:

The DESCRIPTION file of a package contains the package’s meta information. Most of the fields in this file are quite straight forward: author, version number, and a short package description. When you call library(help="<package name>") for package <package name> you can see the contents of the DESCRIPTION file for that package (and some parts of the NAMESPACE file).

Read through Colin Fay’s (short) book on Licensing R

Write a blog post addressing the following questions:

Under what license does R operate? What is the license for ggplot2?

— R operates under a General Public License either version 2 from June 1991 or version 3 from June 2007. ggplot2 however runs off of an MIT license. A MIT license is a license that gives explicit consent for the users to reuse their code for any purpose.

What are the dependencies of the package you made?

Read through chapter 5.2 of Licensing R. Combine and adjust the code pieces to create the dependencies for a package that is on github rather than CRAN. (Don’t forget about the package desc.) What dependencies does the package have that you created for Lab-3?

usethis::use_package(“dplyr”) usethis::use_package(“tabulizer”) usethis::use_package(“lubridate”) usethis::use_package(“readr”) usethis::use_package(“stringr”)

Which licenses are involved? ‘dplyr’ uses an MIT license ‘tabulizer’uses an MIT license ’lubridate’ uses a GPL-2 | GPL-3 license ‘readr’ uses an MIT license ‘stringr’ uses an MIT license

We are using an MIT license for our package.

Are all of these dependencies required? Elaborate.

The way we set up our dependecies these packages are required. However, you can set up dependencies in different ways. If you use “Imports” then you need to have that package downloaded when you install the package. Or you could have the dependencies as suggestions and it will just suggest that you download a certain package, but will not make you and will not install the package when you intall the intended package.

Under which license should this blog post be published? Make sure that you are using an appropriate license. (You can change the current licenses with the help of commands from the use_license_XXX family in the usethis package)

For this blog post I a using a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. This is used for creative non-comercial purposes.

Can I publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when I have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3?

When confronted with the above question, ChatGPT gave two – quite different – responses, as shown below. The main point in both responses is ‘your package may be considered derivative work’. At the specific problem of the package developed for Lab 3, what is your opinion about potential copyright infringements when releasing the package with an MIT license? Make sure to take the relevant passage in Colin Fay’s book under consideration.

The thing that stuck out to me most about Colin Fay’s paper was the idea of whether or not the work you are creating is going to be used for commercial use. Because we are not going to be using our package for commercial use I think we should be in the clear. However, I think if we wanted to actually publish this code via CRAN we would have to also publish our code under a GPL-3 license. Even though I have found instances where there have been instances where someone has published a package with GPL dependencies under and MIT license, example being ‘memoise’

The legal implications of publishing an R package on CRAN under an MIT license while having a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3 are complex and can vary depending on the specific circumstances. It is always advisable to seek legal advice from a licensed attorney if you have any doubts or concerns about licensing issues.

However, in general, it is possible to publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when you have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3. This is because the MIT license is a permissive open-source license that allows for more flexibility in how the software can be used and distributed, and it is generally considered compatible with the GPL-3 license.

That being said, if your package depends on a GPL-3-licensed package, your package may be considered a derivative work and therefore subject to the terms of the GPL-3 license. This means that if you distribute your package, you may need to also distribute the source code for your package under the GPL-3 license or a compatible license, and you may need to ensure that the requirements of the GPL-3 license are met for the entire distribution, including any dependencies.

It is also worth noting that the R community has its own guidelines and recommendations for package licensing, and it is important to comply with these guidelines if you want to publish your package on CRAN. The CRAN Repository Policy states that packages should have a "permissive" or "GPL-compatible" license, but does not explicitly require that packages use the GPL license or any other specific license.

In summary, while it is possible to publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license while having a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3, it is important to understand the implications of the different licenses and to ensure that you comply with any applicable guidelines and recommendations from the R community.

After harping a bit on copyright infringement in general, ChatGPT changed its response to

Technically, you can publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when you have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3, but doing so would not be compliant with the terms of the GPL-3 license.

The GPL-3 license is a strong copyleft license that requires derivative works to be released under the same license. If your package depends on a GPL-3-licensed package, your package may be considered a derivative work and therefore must be licensed under the GPL-3 license or a compatible license.

The MIT license, on the other hand, is a permissive license that allows for more flexibility in how the software is used and distributed. However, it is not compatible with the GPL-3 license, and therefore cannot be used for derivative works of GPL-3-licensed software.

Publishing an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when you have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3 would be a licensing violation, and could potentially result in legal action or other consequences. It is important to comply with the licensing requirements of all dependencies in your package to avoid any legal issues.

The ‘harping’ questions:

Is it legal to publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when I have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3?

Is it illegal to publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when I have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3? Yes? The legality is really unclear, is from what I understood.
Is it a copyright infringement to publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when I have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3?

Yes

Can I publish an R package on CRAN under an MIT license when I have a dependency on a package that is licensed under GPL-3 without infringing copyright?

Submission

Write answers to the questions directly into the file README.Rmd. Push the blog post to your blog-7 repo. Make sure that all of the checks are passing.