Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-22 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 03:32:01PM +, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit : > > Still, I think the way the R project distributes MIT-licensed stuff is > not ok. Hi Mattia, the R packages distributed on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) are uploaded there by their own authors, therefore I think

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-22 Thread Ben Finney
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:10:57AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > This issue should be resolved by the upstream distributor, as I > > agree with you that they are not compliant with the conditions of > > the license. You may want to have that discussion

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-22 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:10:57AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > This issue should be resolved by the upstream distributor, as I agree > with you that they are not compliant with the conditions of the license. > You may want to have that discussion with them. I wonder how to contact R people, I've

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-22 Thread Ben Finney
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 07:52:18AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > Mattia Rizzolo writes: > > > > > What I'm saying is that IMHO the only license requirement (the > > > second paragraph of it that you reported above, about including >

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-22 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
[you forgot to CC me on this, anyway, I temporarly subscribed d-legal@] On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 07:52:18AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Mattia Rizzolo writes: > > > Yes, I see how the MIT license is DFSG-free. What I'm saying is that > > IMHO the only license requirement (the

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-21 Thread Ben Finney
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > Yes, I see how the MIT license is DFSG-free. What I'm saying is that > IMHO the only license requirement (the second paragraph of it that you > reported above, about including the copyright notice *and* the > permission notice in any copy of the

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-21 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:28:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Mattia Rizzolo writes: > > Based on http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > > > This is a template. Complete and ship as file LICENSE the following 2 > > lines (only) > > > > YEAR: > > COPYRIGHT HOLDER: > > > > and

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-20 Thread Ben Finney
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > So, today I discovered [0] that R-project has some polices regarding > licenses [1]. In particular they have one regarding the MIT license > [2]. This needs to go together with their extensions manuals [3]. > > Read together they say that if you have

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-20 Thread Ben Finney
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > [ please CC me as I'm not in d-legal@ ] Done. > So, today I discovered [0] that R-project has some polices regarding > licenses [1]. In particular they have one regarding the MIT license > [2]. This needs to go together with their extensions

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-20 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:07:06PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > FWIW, I've been rejecting them where I see them. Mind filing serious bugs > on those 11? Incidentally I have sponsored one of those this morning (assuming it was fine given that I found so many examples in the archive), and

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

2016-03-20 Thread Paul R. Tagliamonte
FWIW, I've been rejecting them where I see them. Mind filing serious bugs on those 11? Paul On Mar 20, 2016 11:32 AM, "Mattia Rizzolo" wrote: > [ please CC me as I'm not in d-legal@ ] > > So, today I discovered [0] that R-project has some polices regarding > licenses [1]. In