On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@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@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel