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

[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: detail about license in duc package

Herbert Fortes (hpfn) wrote: > Hi, > > On version 1.4.0 of the duc package a new file > became part of the software. At a first read > I thought it was free. But now I have doubts. > > First paragraph: > > "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a

Re: detail about license in duc package

Herbert Fortes (hpfn) writes: > On version 1.4.0 of the duc package a new file became part of the > software. At a first read I thought it was free. But now I have > doubts. Thank you for taking care to verify Debian users have free software. > First paragraph: > > "Permission

detail about license in duc package

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, On version 1.4.0 of the duc package a new file became part of the software. At a first read I thought it was free. But now I have doubts. First paragraph: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this

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

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

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

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

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