About licensing, On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 17:30, SHIMA Tatsuya <ts1s1a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ivan, thanks for taking the time to look at all the details of this. > > > You licensed the package as MIT. Are your dependencies compatible > with MIT? All direct dependencies of your Rust code seem to be licensed > under either MIT or Apache-2.0, which seems to be compatible. > > I am not a legal expert, but as you have seen all of prqlr's dependent crates > are compatible with the MIT license, and I interpret this to mean that there > is no problem distributing anything containing them under the MIT license.
No, that's not what "compatibility" means. You cannot just take n pieces of software, bundle them, and release them under a license of your choice (unless their licenses enable you to do so via some re-licensing clause, like the Artistic-2.0 license does). That's not the case here. By licensing your package as MIT, you are violating the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, because I assume that you are not modifying those dependencies at all. So your work should be both MIT and Apache-2.0 (and others, should they exist, and provided they are compatible). Best, -- Iñaki Úcar ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
