I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? -- Charles Geyer Professor, School of Statistics Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science University of Minnesota charlie at stat.umn.edu
A number of years ago I asked here for the ISC to be added and was told you have to ask CRAN, not Rd. Good luck, Avi On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM Charles Geyer <charlie at stat.umn.edu> wrote:> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R > > licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? > > > > -- > > Charles Geyer > > Professor, School of Statistics > > Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science > > University of Minnesota > > charlie at stat.umn.edu > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > --Sent from Gmail Mobile [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R > licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks that it's a good license for open source software? If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize it. Duncan Murdoch
I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other than an honest request for information. As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have an option to license software in the public domain, then I would support the inclusion of some such option. FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns up unlicense.org as the second result. Frederick On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: > > I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R > > licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? > > > > That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize > it. > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote: >> >> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R >> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile? >> > > That's a question for you to answer, not to ask. Who besides you thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize > it.Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 This follows the format explained in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a shorthand (e.g., geoknife). https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that <quote> Licenses currently found in Debian main include: - ... - ... - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) </quote> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: public-domain + file LICENSE". -Deepayan> Duncan Murdoch > > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel