On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote:
> > On 2 October 2020 at 14:44, Jeff Newmiller wrote: > | if you want clarity in the minds of _users_ I would beg you to split the > code into two packages. People will likely either be afraid of the GPL > bogey man and refrain from utilizing your MIT code as permitted or fail to > honor the GPL terms correctly if both are in the same package. > > Have you read R's own doc/COPYRIGHTS ? > > https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/doc/COPYRIGHTS > > In short the opposite of what you just suggest. > > Also, labels such as "more liberal" or "permissive" or "bogey man" are not > exactly unambiguous. Different people can and do have different views > here. > I would suggest using simpler terms such as "different". What matters is > that > the licenses permit open source use while ensuring they are compatible > which > is generally the case these days. > I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, especially given that "compatibility" is not symmetric. For example, you can include MIT license code in a GPL licensed package; you can not include GPL licensed code inside an MIT licensed package. There are some rough guidelines at https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#license-compatibility. Hadley -- http://hadley.nz [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
