1

I found a software package (R library on CRAN) distributed under GPL license, which makes use of Java classes. The classes are distributed, but for the sources, a README states: "for access to the java source of .class files, contact XXX". The same author apparently developed both, so that it's not just a modified version of some GPL Java library.

I would like to know if it's possible to distribute part of a software package with a non-free license, while the package is itself under GPL. I have not yet contacted the author, and the Java sources might be under GPL too, but it looks smelly: if they are, why not disrtibute them with the package? I would like to clarify what is permitted by the license first.

Link to the R package on CRAN

  • I suggest you first clarify the basic information (the open points you mentioned in your question). You might include the thought if the code without provided source is a 'module' in line with this Q&A https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense , and then you might also want to consider this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs – Martin_in_AUT Dec 01 '22 at 10:50
  • @Martin_in_AUT The Java classes are part of the R package : the .class files are distributed with the sources, and the R functions rely on these Java classes through rJava (R - Java link). As I understand it, it's not a submodule, but a core part of the package. –  Dec 01 '22 at 11:18
  • Note that the developer itself is technically allowed to violate its own license. See also: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate – Brandin Dec 01 '22 at 13:30
  • @Brandin Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for, but I wasn't able to find it in the faq. But then, since the packge is partially closed-source, what happens if someone want to redistribute a modification (on the R part, obviously), since part of the package will still be closed source ? –  Dec 01 '22 at 13:54
  • And what happens if the package is used with other GPL packages (there are answers on OS.SE stating that using a package means the code has to be GPL too, for instance this). Moreover, glmulti depends on leaps, which is also GPL. Looks like a can of worms. –  Dec 01 '22 at 13:54
  • Are you sure it is actually GPL licensed? Maybe it's a CRAN classification problem (the package manager tagged the whole package as 'GPL' for convenience). But I looked in that archive that you linked to and didn't see any notice that says that the package as a whole is supposed to be GPL, and notably there's no copy of the GPL itself to be found (which is also a requirement of the GPL, to include the text). It's possible that the author intended only the .R file(s) to be GPL, for example. – Brandin Dec 01 '22 at 14:02
  • @Brandin The license identifier is written in the DESCRIPTION file (by the author of the package). But you are right, there is no copy of the GPL. It's possible to release only the R files under GPL? –  Dec 01 '22 at 14:04
  • Maybe it'd be simplest to contact the author and ask if the .class files are under the GPL, too. If he says yes, then ask him "please could I have the source code to them" and then once he gives you the source code, you are then free to redistribute them under the terms of the GPL at that point. – Brandin Dec 01 '22 at 14:11
  • @Brandin Thanks, I'll do that. I wanted first to make sure I understand correctly the issue. –  Dec 01 '22 at 14:13

0 Answers0