>>>>> 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/license-list.html#CC0) OSI: NA (https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero) URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode FOSS: yes in the R license db ... -k > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <br...@braverock.com> > wrote: >> >> 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 FSF for software intended for >>> the public domain. >> >> I'd second the recommendation for CC0. Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms >> I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license. >> >> - Brian >> > -- > Charles Geyer > Professor, School of Statistics > Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science > University of Minnesota > char...@stat.umn.edu > ______________________________________________ > 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