Because the common FOSS licenses are installed with R, CRAN asks you
to refer to those copies not distribute your own. See 'Writing R
Extensions'.
I agree that most R packages are lacking copyright statements (which
is a separate issue, and whose purpose varies by jurisdiction:
provided owne
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Federico Calboli
wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 16:12, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Federico Calboli
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:56, Spencer Graves wrote:
> Ok, thanks for that. I though that, since R in under GPL-v2, I can o
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Federico Calboli
wrote:
> The vast majority of CRAN libraries seem to be released under some sort of
> GPL version. I never seen a license though.
You're right. The GNU people say "should":
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
---
You should also includ
On 08/07/2011 10:56 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
On 7/8/2011 4:26 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 12:06, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>> On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
>>> HI All,
>>>
>>> I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it is under is '
On 7/8/2011 8:07 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:56, Spencer Graves wrote:
Ok, thanks for that. I though that, since R in under GPL-v2, I
can only release my code under GPL-v2 because the code is written
in R and probably qualifies as a derivative work.
Did you include someone
On Jul 8, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 4:26 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 12:06, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
HI All,
I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it is
On 8 Jul 2011, at 16:12, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Federico Calboli
> wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:56, Spencer Graves wrote:
Ok, thanks for that. I though that, since R in under GPL-v2, I can only
release my code under GPL-v2 because the code is writte
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Federico Calboli
wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:56, Spencer Graves wrote:
>>> Ok, thanks for that. I though that, since R in under GPL-v2, I can only
>>> release my code under GPL-v2 because the code is written in R and probably
>>> qualifies as a derivative work.
On 07/08/2011 07:58 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
On 7/8/2011 4:26 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
On 8 Jul 2011, at 12:06, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
HI All,
I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it
is under is 'GPL' --no version
On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:56, Spencer Graves wrote:
>> Ok, thanks for that. I though that, since R in under GPL-v2, I can only
>> release my code under GPL-v2 because the code is written in R and probably
>> qualifies as a derivative work.
>
> Did you include someone else's GPL-vx code (possibly
On 7/8/2011 4:26 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
On 8 Jul 2011, at 12:06, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
HI All,
I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it is under is 'GPL' --no
version. My assumption is, since all the code is writt
On 8 Jul 2011, at 12:06, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
>> HI All,
>>
>> I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it is
>> under is 'GPL' --no version. My assumption is, since all the code is written
>> in R the licence R used for
On 11-07-08 6:20 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
HI All,
I have written and succesfully uploaded a new package. The licence it is under is 'GPL' --no
version. My assumption is, since all the code is written in R the licence R used for R would affect
the code (hence my "GPL" stands for "whatever ve
13 matches
Mail list logo
