On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:51 PM Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A collaborator is arguing that it's a good idea to license one small > component of a package under the MIT license, while the rest of it > remains GPL >=2. > > Suppose this is feasible. How do I specify the license? As far as I > can tell from > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Licensing > the DESCRIPTION file should have > > License: file LICENSE > License_is_FOSS: yes > License_restricts_use: no > > But I can't figure out what should go in the LICENSE file. The one > file that contains the MIT-licensed components contains the relevant > license text in its body. > > License: GPL (>=2) | MIT + file LICENSE > > doesn't seem right, because these are not *alternative* licenses. Would > "GPL (>=2) + file LICENSE" be OK? We could explain the situation in > LICENSE.note (WRE says "To include comments about the licensing rather > than the body of a license, use a file named something like > LICENSE.note. ") > > Could file LICENSE contain > > The code in this package is licensed under GPL >=2 (see > https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-2, > https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-3, except for <FILE xxx>, which > is under the MIT license (see <FILE xxx for details>). > ? >
I have some recommendations at https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#code-you-bundle, but in brief use License: GPL (>= 2) and then explain in LICENSE.note which components have more liberal licenses. Hadley -- http://hadley.nz [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
