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 cor
Hadley offers what you _can_ do, but 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 ar
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:51 PM Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>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 t
On 1 October 2020 at 19:13, Max Turgeon wrote:
| Hi Nicholas,
|
| I see two potential solutions, maybe other people will suggest different ones:
|
| 1. You can make the evaluation of the whole vignette dependent on the data
packages being available. Here's an example from one of my packages:
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/
