On 20/03/16 06:02, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > control: tag -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 ! > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:47:27PM +0100, Gordon Ball wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "r-cran-r6" > > here we go :) > Thank you for taking the time to look at these packages.
>> * Package name : r-cran-r6 Version : 2.1.2-1 Upstream >> Author : Winston Chang <wins...@stdout.org> * URL : >> https://github.com/wch/R6 * License : MIT Section >> : gnu-r >> >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/r-cran-r6/r-cran-r6_2.1.2-1.dsc > >> > well, it looks good (even if it uses CDBS which I don't like, but I > know there is the well-maintained r-base-dev that works pretty well > for R). Yes, it seemed best to be consistent with the rest of the r- ecosystem. > > though, you wrote that this packages uses the MIT license (though > you maybe want "Expat" instead), except for citing the MIT license > in the DESCRPTION file, I can't find any copy of the license > itself. This is actually a violation of the MIT. Please clarify 1) > how you could know upstream intended *that* MIT license (there are > several, you reported the most common one called Expat) 2) really > upstream needs to ship one copy of it. > The R extension manual [1], section 1.1.2, gives a list of accepted short license names (including "MIT") and indicates they refer to the copies on the R licensing page [2]. This gives MIT/Expat in template form [3]. The text in d/copyright should be a copy of [3] starting from "Permission". Admittedly that file does indicate that a copy should have been included as the LICENSE file, but I think that following the R manual to deduce this is the correct form of the license is valid. Is the contents of LICENSE a blocker until and unless upstream changes this, or can the intent be taken as sufficiently clear? [1]: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html [2]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/ [3]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/MIT
