Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 have some on github that are just examples for teaching. I'll change them to CC0. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote: >> 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 >> 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 -- 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
> 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 > 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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) photocopy "Greensleeves" for classroom use without infringing. However, this has also been applied to software collections harvested from the public domain; the notorious example being the Numerical Recipes book claiming licenses to use the subroutines it contained. This is the sort of thing that makes IP lawyers uncomfortable with anything except well standardized licenses. -pd On 18 Jan 2017, at 02:32 , Karl Millar via R-devel wrote: > 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 with both an OSI-approved license and > whatever-else-you-like, e.g. 'MIT | ', but IIUC > there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved > license. > > Karl > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges > wrote: >> >> >> 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' means >>> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe. >> >> >> >> Karl, >> >> thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what the >> maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know that >> "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the >> "Unlimited" options. >> >> We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for "freeware". >> Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes closest >> to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less >> globally, i.e. not only in the US? >> >> Best, >> Uwe >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges >>> wrote: 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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding individual license specification. ... Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." So perhaps you aim for License: Unlimited Best, Uwe Ligges On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: > > > 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 >> thinks >> that it's a good license for open source software? >> >> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS >> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN >> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to >> recognize >> it. > > > > Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ > > Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think > this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be > "public domain". The first two examples I found: > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 > > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 > > This follows the format explained in > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, > which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, > which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is > equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a > shorthand (e.g., geoknife). > > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that > > >
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for the public domain. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Karl Millar via R-devel < r-devel@r-project.org> wrote: > 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 with both an OSI-approved license and > whatever-else-you-like, e.g. 'MIT | ', but IIUC > there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved > license. > > Karl > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges > wrote: > > > > > > 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' means > >> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe. > > > > > > > > Karl, > > > > thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what > the > > maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know > that > > "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the > > "Unlimited" options. > > > > We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for > "freeware". > > Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes > closest > > to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less > > globally, i.e. not only in the US? > > > > Best, > > Uwe > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Karl > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms > should > >>> be > >>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ > (or > >>> ‘+ > >>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the > >>> corresponding individual license specification. > >>> ... > >>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, > >>> since > >>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." > >>> > >>> So perhaps you aim for > >>> License: Unlimited > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Uwe Ligges > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: > > > 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 > > thinks > > that it's a good license for open source software? > > > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a > FOSS > > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then > CRAN > > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to > > recognize > > it. > > > > Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ > > Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think > this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be > "public domain". The first two examples I found: > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 > > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/ > copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 > > This follows the format explained in > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright- > format/1.0/#license-specification, > which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, > which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is > equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a > shorthand (e.g., geoknife). > > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that > > > > Licenses currently found in Debian main include: > > - ... > - ... > - public domain (n
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 with both an OSI-approved license and whatever-else-you-like, e.g. 'MIT | ', but IIUC there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved license. Karl On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote: > > > 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' means >> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe. > > > > Karl, > > thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what the > maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know that > "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the > "Unlimited" options. > > We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for "freeware". > Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes closest > to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less > globally, i.e. not only in the US? > > Best, > Uwe > > > > >> Thanks, >> >> Karl >> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges >> wrote: >>> >>> 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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should >>> be >>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or >>> ‘+ >>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the >>> corresponding individual license specification. >>> ... >>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, >>> since >>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." >>> >>> So perhaps you aim for >>> License: Unlimited >>> >>> Best, >>> Uwe Ligges >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: 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 > thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to > recognize > it. Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 This follows the format explained in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a shorthand (e.g., geoknife). https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that Licenses currently found in Debian main include: - ... - ... - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: public-domain + file LICENSE". -Deepayan > Duncan Murdoch > > > __ > 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 >>> >>> __ >>> 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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' means something very different than it presumably means to Uwe. Karl, thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what the maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know that "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the "Unlimited" options. We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for "freeware". Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes closest to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less globally, i.e. not only in the US? Best, Uwe Thanks, Karl On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote: 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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding individual license specification. ... Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." So perhaps you aim for License: Unlimited Best, Uwe Ligges On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: 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 thinks that it's a good license for open source software? If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize it. Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 This follows the format explained in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a shorthand (e.g., geoknife). https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that Licenses currently found in Debian main include: - ... - ... - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: public-domain + file LICENSE". -Deepayan Duncan Murdoch __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 presumably means to Uwe. Thanks, Karl On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote: > 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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be > placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ > file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the > corresponding individual license specification. > ... > Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since > it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." > > So perhaps you aim for > License: Unlimited > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> 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 thinks >>> that it's a good license for open source software? >>> >>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS >>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN >>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize >>> it. >> >> >> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ >> >> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think >> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be >> "public domain". The first two examples I found: >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 >> >> This follows the format explained in >> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, >> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, >> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is >> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a >> shorthand (e.g., geoknife). >> >> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that >> >> >> >> Licenses currently found in Debian main include: >> >> - ... >> - ... >> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) >> >> >> >> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: >> public-domain + file LICENSE". >> >> -Deepayan >> >>> Duncan Murdoch >>> >>> >>> __ >>> 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 >> > > __ > 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 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, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns > up unlicense.org as the second result. > > Frederick > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, 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 thinks >> that it's a good license for open source software? >> >> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS >> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN >> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize >> it. >> >> Duncan Murdoch >> >> __ >> 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding individual license specification. ... Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." So perhaps you aim for License: Unlimited Best, Uwe Ligges On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: 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 thinks that it's a good license for open source software? If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize it. Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 This follows the format explained in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a shorthand (e.g., geoknife). https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that Licenses currently found in Debian main include: - ... - ... - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: public-domain + file LICENSE". -Deepayan Duncan Murdoch __ 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 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize > it. Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be "public domain". The first two examples I found: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 This follows the format explained in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a shorthand (e.g., geoknife). https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that Licenses currently found in Debian main include: - ... - ... - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: public-domain + file LICENSE". -Deepayan > Duncan Murdoch > > > __ > 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 would | support the inclusion of some such option. | | FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns | up unlicense.org as the second result. You missed the gist of Duncan's post: unless/until a body with authority on which licenses interoperate blesses this one, it is not on the radar. In short, it has to be compatible with other key OSS licenses. The documentation put forward says nothing about that, which is a problem. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns up unlicense.org as the second result. Frederick On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, 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 thinks > that it's a good license for open source software? > > If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS > license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN > doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize > it. > > Duncan Murdoch > > __ > 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
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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 recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it. If not, then CRAN doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize it. Duncan Murdoch __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] unlicense
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? > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
