Legal Stuff

All that legal stuff…
Author

Logan Johnson

Published

March 9, 2023

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?

My Responses:

R

R operates under a multitude of licenses, including either the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 2 or Version 3. R also states that a few files are distributed under the LESSER GNU GPL, version 2.1 or later.

ggplot2

ggplot2 operates under an MIT + file license.

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)

My Responses:

• I looked at the emo package and compared it with ggplot2. emo is hosted on github while ggplot2 has CRAN listed as the repository. The ggplot2 package has a different license than the emo package, listed under the MIT + file license or GPL-3 licenses, respectively.

• Without explicitly adding to the dependencies part of the package, each new package includes the dependency of R (>= 2.10). This is true of the package made during Lab 3. There is an MIT + file license for the new package that we created. Since each of the packages are considered “add-on” or “extensions” of R, and R is licensed under a GPL-2 or GPL-3 license, each of the “add-on” or packages developed have to be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. This blog post could or should be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License because it requires attribution while restricting commercial use or derivative work.

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.

My Responses:

•This is a tricky questions. Our package in Lab 3 includes data that we did not create. This data is publicly available, but since it is accessing the data, it would be best to have the user of the package acknowledge the license or the initial location of the public data, similar to the example that was used with the textdata and tinytex examples in the book. If the user were to use the get_pd_presslog function from our package, the user could be prompted with a message on the license about the data.

•I think the legality of the MIT license having a dependency on the GPL-3 license is kind of a gray area. It might depend on the type of data or information under the GPL-3 license. Conversely, my knowledge of the legality of these licenses could be completely the opposite where it is illegal to do this but because of the populations poor understanding of this and the lack of control or enforcement by the GPL-3 license holders, this type of violation continues to pass through the system.

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?

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.