search for: free_and_gplv3_incompatible

...============== --- share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733) +++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy) @@ -317,3 +317,12 @@ URL: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice FOSS: no Restricts_use: yes + +Name: Open Software License +Abbrev: OSL +Version: 3.0 +SSS: OSL-3.0 +FSF: free_and_GPLv3_incompatible ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL) +OSI: open (http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0) +URL: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf +FOSS: yes The great advantage of OSL is that it's similar to AGPL in the means of requesting the derivative works to be published...

...as is because of included data, data that is needed to run realistic examples. The problem could be picky packagers, but it is also reasonable that well-known example data sets could be licensed differently. share/licenses/license.db lists for example CC BY-SA 4.0 as both FOSS and extensible but free_and_GPLv3_incompatible. One possibility I examined when challenged was to place all such data files in a separate package, for example under a CC license accepted by CRAN - I didn't complete the task, but understand Ben's question as applying to the same question. Roger > > > > cheers > >...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Does anyone have speculations about the implications of the GPL for data included in a package, or more generally for restricting use of data? The specific use case is that I have a package which is otherwise GPL (version unspecified at present). There are various data sets included, but they are all essentially in the public domain. I'm