On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible > license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is > indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be > the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for > the public domain.I'd second the recommendation for CC0. ?Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license. ?- Brian
In that case, perhaps the question could be changed to could CC0 be added to the list of R licences. Right now the only CC licence that is in the R licenses is CC-BY-SA-4.0. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <brian at braverock.com> wrote:> > On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote: >> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible >> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is >> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be >> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for >> the public domain. > > I'd second the recommendation for CC0. Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms > I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license. > > - Brian >-- Charles Geyer Professor, School of Statistics Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science University of Minnesota charlie at stat.umn.edu
>>>>> Charles Geyer writes:> In that case, perhaps the question could be changed to could CC0 be > added to the list of R licences. Right now the only CC licence that > is in the R licenses is CC-BY-SA-4.0.Hmm, I see Name: CC0 FSF: free_and_GPLv3_compatible (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0) OSI: NA (https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero) URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode FOSS: yes in the R license db ... -k> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <brian at braverock.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote: >>> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible >>> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is >>> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be >>> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for >>> the public domain. >> >> I'd second the recommendation for CC0. Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms >> I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license. >> >> - Brian >>> -- > 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