I’m not a lawyer

Author

Not Charlie

Published

March 9, 2022

Frontmatter check Render rmarkdown

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?

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? Which licenses are involved? Are all of these dependencies required? Elaborate.

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)

library(pkgnet)
get_deps <- function(pkg){
  DependencyReporter$new()$set_package(pkg)$nodes$node
}

bulxtr.deps <- get_deps("bulletxtrctr")
INFO [2023-03-19 18:09:33] Constructing dependency network for bulletxtrctr
INFO [2023-03-19 18:09:34] ...done constructing dependency network.
head(bulxtr.deps)
[1] "MASS"         "Matrix"       "R6"           "RColorBrewer" "Rcpp"        
[6] "Rdpack"      
# remotes::install_github("charlestbonk/lab-3-lab-3-team-unl") # Note: This isn't working becuase the lab is private and R can't seem to see the package for that reason. :(
  • Also, regarding this blog post… As I say later (and like everyday), I disappointed my father by doing statistics instead of becoming a lawyer, so don’t take my undderstanding of copyright law as the final say. But We do use the pkgnet package. This has a BSD 3 licesnse, which is the most chill, relaxed liceense regarding free use and modification of code, so long you cite the original package. I also did look at bulletxtrctr (because apparantly that is the only package that came to mind?)(also hi Heike if you are reading this). It does have a GPL-3 license, but I didn’t actually DO anything with it? Like I didn’t even load it, and from my understanding, that isn’t using the package so I am good from that copyright infringement [see 2.2.2 for more on this.]

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 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?

  • 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?

  • 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?

My Answers

  • So firstly, I am not a lawyer, I am not claiming to be a lawyer, or have any legal training, and in fact, I find legal documents as the most absolutely boring and dreadful things known to man. That being said…
    • The only packages our Lab 3 package calls upon are from Tidyverse, lubridate, litr, and and UseThis. Of the 4, the only package with a GPL3 license is lubridate. The question then come to “Did we do enough with lubridate to warrent it being a ‘derivative work’.
    • My good friend ChatGPT defines a Derivative Work as “A derivative work is a new work that is created by modifying or building upon an existing work that is protected by copyright.”
    • We did not make any modifications to the lubridate package itself, only used it for it’s intended purpose.
    • So from my non-legal legal advice that you should 100% not trust beyond your own common sense, PressLoggeR should be fine under a MIT license on CRAN.

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.