Thanks very much. In the end I gave up and removed the offending LaTeX files, as the goal of this was to get the package to build on r-hub's Fedora platform, and it seems more promising to work with the r-hub folks to get a sufficiently complete LaTeX installation available there (as the required files seem to be present on every _other_ Linux platform I've tried). (For future readers/references, the huxtable package is driving these requirements.)
cheers Ben Bolker On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:49 PM Hadley Wickham <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:11 AM Ben Bolker <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> > > %% -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > %% 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 > > %% 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 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? > > It's my understanding that the goal of the license field is to list > one license that the entire package can be distributed under (i.e. is > compatible with all licenses in the package). As long as you believe > that LPPL is compatible with the AGPL-3, then it's fine to keep the > license as AGPL-3. > > I don't believe it would be correct to use "AGPL-3 + file LICENSE` as > R-exts only lists three uses of file LICENSE, none of which apply to > your case: > > > 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. > > > The optional file LICENSE/LICENCE contains a copy of the license of the > > package... > > Whereas you should feel free to include a license file in your source > > distribution, please do not arrange to > install yet another copy of the GNU COPYING or COPYING.LIB files ... > > Since files named LICENSE or LICENCE will be installed, do not use these > > names for standard license files. > > > A few “standard” licenses are rather license templates which need > > additional information to be > > completed via ‘+ file LICENSE’. > > I also recommend two additional changes: > > * Include a LICENSE.note field that describes any parts of the package > that are available under other licenses. > > * Add the authors of the included files to Authors@R > > See https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#how-to-include for more details. I > haven't had any explicit feedback on these recommendations from CRAN > but they have worked for me in package submissions and align with my > (possibly flawed) understanding of CRAN policies and beliefs around > licensing. > > Hadley > > -- > http://hadley.nz ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
