Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> Roel Janssen writes: >>> >>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>>> >>>>> Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes: >>>>>> + (description "This package provides a shared resource interface for >>>>>> the >>>>>> +bigmemory and synchronicity packages.") >>>>>> + (license (list license:lgpl3 license:asl2.0)))) >>>>> >>>>> What does this list mean? >>>>> Also: is this LGPL3+ or LGPL3 only? >>>> >>>> The CRAN page lists LGPL3 explicitly, but that could be imprecise ... >>>> The source code package does not contain any other license indication >>>> than waht is stated in the DESCRIPTION file (which states LGPL3 and >>>> Apache Software License 2.0). >>>> >>>> See: >>>> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bigmemory.sri/ >>>> >>>> So, I think the only thing I can do is just follow what has been stated, >>>> which is LGPL3 (precisely this) and Apache Software License 2.0. >>> >>> I don't know how to proceed now. I think it's fine as the list of >>> licenses is the list of licenses they provide. >>> >>> Are these licenses incompatible? If so, then there's nothing I can do >>> either, because these are the licenses that are provided.. >> >> Usually, what we do for R is to assume “or later” because that’s how >> things are usually done on CRAN. (They also automatically expand >> license declarations.) > > Well I don't think we can do that in this case because that's not what > the license field says. In the code there's no license at all, so that > makes it even more difficult.
You’re right. I misremembered. It’s only these joint license declarations like “GPL-2 | GPL-3” that effectively mean “or later”. (It is impossible to express “or later” in canonical R license fields.) > I guess this is about the possible license incompatibility between LGPLv3 > and Apache? I tried to explain that in any case, there's nothing I can > do about it anyway.. Actually, the declaration in this package means “either this or that” license. See https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#The-DESCRIPTION-file “The mandatory ‘License’ field in the DESCRIPTION file should specify the license of the package in a standardized form. Alternatives are indicated via vertical bars.” Your patch is fine if you add a comment above the license field that states that these one of these two licenses may be choosen. ~~ Ricardo
