To get around this last problem, perhaps you can take advantage of CRAN's suggestion regarding large data files [1] where they say "[w]here a large amount of data is required (even after compression), consideration should be given to a separate data-only package which can be updated only rarely (since older versions of packages are archived in perpetuity)." This would allow you to have a different license for the data package than for the main package. Whether CRAN will except a file + LICENSE with "please only use academically" or a CC-BY-NC, is a different question.
Avi [1] <http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html#Source-packages> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd <at> debian.org> writes: > >> On 22 April 2015 at 11:34, Roger Bivand wrote: >> | While I agree with Martyn with respect to code, documentation, and >> | vignettes, the point Ben raises is relevant and not obvious. Data sets in >> | say GLP-licensed packages are on occasion challenged by Debian packagers > > [GPL] > >> Not generally the packagers (who get frustrated by this like everybody else) >> but by the "ftp-masters" teams who look over what gets into the Archive. >> >> They are the license reviewers, and gate-keepers. >> >> In several cases we (ie "packagers") had to write README.sources to document >> origins of datasets. That is generally a little silly as ... R itself >> already enforces in the .Rd files. So for the packages where I had to do that >> the README.sources effectively becomes a forward reference to the R docs. >> But then again the ftp-masters review _thousands_ of packages and having to >> help their workflow is a small burden. >> >> In general, nitpicky licensing issue have been discussed (to mindnumbing >> length) on the debian-legal list. Those interested in the issue may want to >> peruse or search the archive: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal >> >> Dirk > > Thanks for the information, everyone! I think I'm just going to > handle it the sloppy way, providing a .Rd file containing > documentation and a URL for the data set. This is not particularly > good for long-term maintenance, but it seems silly to try to get a > separate package onto CRAN for a *single* (small) data set. > > For what it's worth, I've been informed by the CRAN maintainers > that > >> 'license' is singular in the CRAN policies, something people > sometimes overlook. >> A package must have a single licence that applies to all of the > package (even if alternative licences are offered for all or part), > so "GPL except for file XXX" is not viable. > > ______________________________________________ > 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
