Thank you Thomas, I guess there is nothing, that I am aware of, that prevents me from releasing with GPL >= 2 but I wanted to get some insights as to what would be a best practice. I prefer to give as much credit as possible where it is do.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Petzoldt < thomas.petzo...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the MIT license allows > re-licensing of derived work under the GPL. > > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > So what speaks against releasing your derived work under the GPL >= 2? > > Thomas > > > > On 28.05.2015 17:48, Charles Determan wrote: > >> When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that >> package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT >> license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that >> has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with >> YEAR >> and COPYRIGHT HOLDER. >> >> My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this >> given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original >> library authors? >> >> Regards, >> Charles >> > > > -- > Dr. Thomas Petzoldt > Technische Universitaet Dresden > Faculty of Environmental Sciences > Institute of Hydrobiology > 01062 Dresden, Germany > > E-Mail: thomas.petzo...@tu-dresden.de > http://tu-dresden.de/Members/thomas.petzoldt > > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
