On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:47:37 -0500 Elysée Aristide <ariel92...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did not want to put restrictions. Apologies, I could have phrased this better. If you want the whole of your package to be distributed under the terms of Apache-2.0 or GPL-3 license (at the user's choosing), the following DESCRIPTION fragment seems to be the way to express that intent: License: GPL-3 | file LICENSE > What is the better thing to put if I do not want to put > restrictions? The easiest one which allows sharing, copying ...? Personally, I would keep things simple by choosing only one license. Exactly which one to choose is a question of personal preference, as such known to result in flame wars, so I must try to stay neutral. For R packages, the line between Apache-style "please retain the copyright notice if you redistribute" licenses and GPL-style "please share your improvements as source code if you redistribute" is somewhat blurry, since people typically share source .tar.gz packages anyway, thus fulfilling the terms of both licenses. The differences only come into play only when other people distribute the _binary_ packages built from your source code they _modified_. Perhaps re-reading WRE 1.1.2 <https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Licensing> or consulting websites like <https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/licences/> or <https://choosealicense.com/> would help? -- Best regards, Ivan [If you don't mind, let's keep this correspondence on the list by replying-to-all and Cc:-ing <r-package-devel@r-project.org>] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
