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
Dear all, from "Writing R Extensions": The string ?Unlimited?, meaning that there are no restrictions on distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including copyright laws). If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or ?+ file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding individual license specification. ... Please note in particular that ?Public domain? is not a valid license, since it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." So perhaps you aim for License: Unlimited Best, Uwe Ligges On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:> 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 > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >
Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'. Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an acceptable license. To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means something very different than it presumably means to Uwe. Thanks, Karl On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote:> Dear all, > > from "Writing R Extensions": > > The string ?Unlimited?, meaning that there are no restrictions on > distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including > copyright laws). > > If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using > GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be > placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ?+ file LICENSE? (or ?+ > file LICENCE?, respectively) should be appended to the > corresponding individual license specification. > ... > Please note in particular that ?Public domain? is not a valid license, since > it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." > > So perhaps you aim for > License: Unlimited > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel