A collaborator is arguing that it's a good idea to license one small
component of a package under the MIT license, while the rest of it
remains GPL >=2.
Suppose this is feasible. How do I specify the license? As far as I
can tell from
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Licensing
the DESCRIPTION file should have
License: file LICENSE
License_is_FOSS: yes
License_restricts_use: no
But I can't figure out what should go in the LICENSE file. The one
file that contains the MIT-licensed components contains the relevant
license text in its body.
License: GPL (>=2) | MIT + file LICENSE
doesn't seem right, because these are not *alternative* licenses. Would
"GPL (>=2) + file LICENSE" be OK? We could explain the situation in
LICENSE.note (WRE says "To include comments about the licensing rather
than the body of a license, use a file named something like
LICENSE.note. ")
Could file LICENSE contain
The code in this package is licensed under GPL >=2 (see
https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-2,
https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-3, except for <FILE xxx>, which
is under the MIT license (see <FILE xxx for details>).
?
Happy for advice or pointers to other packages that have successfully
done something similar.
Looks like igraphdata may have heterogeneous licensing?
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/igraphdata/index.html
Related:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4314708/if-an-r-packages-licence-x-is-do-all-the-content-in-that-package-have-to-be-li
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
