AGPL was chosen by my colleagues. I'll pass on the information.
On 7/13/21 6:40 PM, Steven Scott wrote:
I'll let others discuss the technical details of how to set up the
licence files. I want to make sure you know that using AGPL is a good
way to ensure that nobody in tech uses your package. Maybe that's
intended, but when I was at Google the ONLY software we were
specifically prohibited from using was code released under AGPL. I won't
try to convince you of that being a good or bad thing, but wanted to
make sure you were aware of it.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 2:11 PM Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com
<mailto:bbol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In the process of trying to get a package to build successfully on
r-hub's Fedora platform, I had to add a whole bunch of LaTeX .sty files
to the vignette directory. One of these was collectbox.sty, which
triggers the NOTE
---
NOTE
The following files contain a license that requires
distribution of original sources:
‘collectbox.sty’
---
The licensing/copyright information in collectbox.sty is as follows:
%% The original source files were:
%%
%% collectbox.dtx (with options: `collectbox.sty')
%%
%% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
%%
%% For the copyright see the source file.
%%
%% Any modified versions of this file must be renamed
%% with new filenames distinct from collectbox.sty.
%%
%% For distribution of the original source see the terms
%% for copying and modification in the file collectbox.dtx.
%%
%% This generated file may be distributed as long as the
%% original source files, as listed above, are part of the
%% same distribution. (The sources need not necessarily be
%% in the same archive or directory.)
%% Copyright (C) 2012 by Martin Scharrer <mar...@scharrer-online.de
<mailto:mar...@scharrer-online.de>>
%% --------------------------------------------------------------------
%% This work may be distributed and/or modified under the
%% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3
%% of this license or (at your option) any later version.
%% The latest version of this license is in
%% http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
<http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt>
%% and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
%% version 2005/12/01 or later.
So I put collectbox.dtx into the inst/misc directory in the
package.
Fine.
Now, what do I need to do to (1) make sure that my DESCRIPTION
file is
correct and (2) hopefully, suppress the NOTE so I don't have to explain
it to the CRAN maintainers every time?
* Do I change the LICENCE line (which is currently AGPL-3)?
According to
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Licensing
<https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Licensing> it would
seem I would have to switch to "file LICENCE" (adding a
"Licence_is_FOSS: yes"), where "LICENCE" contains something like
package code licensed under AGPL-3; file vignettes/collectbox.sty is
under the LaTeX Project Public License (source provided in
misc/collectbox.dtx)
? Should it say "file LICENCE" or "AGPL-3 + file LICENCE" ?
* Do I just include the files without comment, since I have complied
(as
far as I can tell) with the terms of the LPPL?
* Is there a way to signal to R CMD check that I *have* complied with
the terms?
cheers
Ben Bolker
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org <mailto:R-package-devel@r-project.org>
mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
--
Dr. Benjamin Bolker
Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University
Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering
Graduate chair, Mathematics & Statistics
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
