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, <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. > > 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
