I was looking at https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/ which is first
when you google for "R licenses". Silly me. Kurt says I should have
been looking at share/licenses/license.db in the R source tree.
Thanks. I'm satisfied now.
I don't have any CRAN packages with "Unlimited" on them, but I do ha
> 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/lice
Probably, one side of the issue is that people are unaware of the dangers of
overly permissive statements, like the infamous "collection copyright" which
originally applied to collections of medieval music by anonymous composers, but
extends to the individual items, so that you can't (say) photo
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 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>> It
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 Free Software Foundation maintains a list of free and GPL-compatible
software licenses here:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense
It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible license;
however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is indeed
Unfortunately, our lawyers say that they can't give legal advice in
this context.
My question would be, what are people looking for that the MIT or
2-clause BSD license don't provide? They're short, clear, widely
accepted and very permissive. Another possibility might be to
dual-license packages
On 18.01.2017 00:13, Karl Millar wrote:
Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
acceptable license. To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' me
Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
acceptable license. To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
something very different than it presuma
Actually, CRAN does have an alternative to this. "License: Unlimited"
can be used in the DESCRIPTION file, but does less than the cited
"unlicense".
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
> I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
> than an honest request for informa
Dear all,
from "Writing R Extensions":
The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
copyright laws).
If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g.,
using GPL-3 or AGPL-3 wit
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
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 th
On 13 January 2017 at 17:43, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
| I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
| than an honest request for information.
|
| As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
| an option to license software in the public domain, then
I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
than an honest request for information.
As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
support the inclusion of some such option.
FWIW, searc
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 r
A number of years ago I asked here for the ISC to be added and was told you
have to ask CRAN, not Rd.
Good luck,
Avi
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM Charles Geyer wrote:
> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>
> licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>
>
>
I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
--
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
char...@stat.umn.edu
_
17 matches
Mail list logo
