Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'. Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an acceptable license. To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.
Thanks, Karl On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > from "Writing R Extensions": > > The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on > distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including > copyright laws). > > If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using > GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be > placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ > file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the > corresponding individual license specification. > ... > Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since > it is not recognized in some jurisdictions." > > So perhaps you aim for > License: Unlimited > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch >> <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> 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. >> >> >> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ >> >> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think >> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be >> "public domain". The first two examples I found: >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1 >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1 >> >> This follows the format explained in >> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification, >> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0, >> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is >> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a >> shorthand (e.g., geoknife). >> >> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that >> >> <quote> >> >> Licenses currently found in Debian main include: >> >> - ... >> - ... >> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking) >> >> </quote> >> >> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License: >> public-domain + file LICENSE". >> >> -Deepayan >> >>> 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 >> > > ______________________________________________ > 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
