On the other hand, MIT does not restrict what you do with your own contributions, just the included code. GPL restricts rights on redistributing your own work if a component is GPL as well.
Avi On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:51 AM Berwin A Turlach <berwin.turl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > G'day Jeff, > > On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:34:21 -0700 > Jeff Newmiller <jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > Not that I want to get involved in old discussions :), but... > > > MIT is more permissive than GPL2, > > ... this statement depends on how one defines "permissive". > > MIT requires that you fulfil: "The above copyright notice and this > permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial > portions of the Software." (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) > > Whereas GPL 2 merely requires that you "[...] conspicuously and > appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and > disclaimer of warranty [...]". > > Thus, arguably, GPL 2 is more permissive. > > > so there is a collision there. > > Well, luckily the FSF does not think that the MIT license is > incompatible with the GPL license, though it finds the term "MIT > license" misleading and discourages its use, see > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > Cheers, > > Berwin > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel