Giter Club home page Giter Club logo

Comments (10)

hadley avatar hadley commented on August 17, 2024

Update to mention how use_mit_license() etc work (i.e. including LICENSE.md that's build-ignored)

from r-pkgs.

jennybc avatar jennybc commented on August 17, 2024

Material cut out of Whole Game that should be reincorporated in the main license section

(For the record, Whole Game does explain the "deal" with LICENSE.md, since it uses MIT and it comes up.)


For future projects, there is more guidance on licenses in these sources:

from r-pkgs.

emonigma avatar emonigma commented on August 17, 2024

When a project starts with MIT, with a LICENSE file with copyright holder and year, then switches to GPL because it starts including GPL packages, does it need to delete the LICENSE file? Either way, I suggest clarifying that in the book.

from r-pkgs.

wch avatar wch commented on August 17, 2024

I think R-exts now sort of suggests that one can include a normal LICENSE file (that is, normal with respect to the open source world), and add it to .Rbuildignore. More complicated stuff goes into LICENSE.note.

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 but refer to the copies on https://www.R-project.org/Licenses/ and included in the R distribution (in directory share/licenses). Since files named LICENSE or LICENCE will be installed, do not use these names for standard license files. To include comments about the licensing rather than the body of a license, use a file named something like LICENSE.note.

At least, that's what this paragraph (from R-exts) suggests. We also received a suggestion to do it that way for the websocket package, which is GPL-2 licensed but includes C/C++ libraries with various licenses. https://github.com/rstudio/websocket/blob/5281bd4332c1843a421181263d54b7241aa215b6/cran-comments.md

I think that in general, it's good to have a normal LICENSE file that follows the same standard used by other open source projects.

Update: With License: MIT, and a normal LICENSE file that is in .Rbuildignore, R CMD check gives this:

License components which are templates and need '+ file LICENSE':
  MIT

So perhaps .Rbuildignore-ing the LICENSE file won't work, at least for MIT.

from r-pkgs.

jennybc avatar jennybc commented on August 17, 2024

@wch The current logic of usethis::use_mit_license() satisfies both the open source world and CRAN. We put a copy of the MIT license in LICENSE.md and Rbuildignore it and use LICENSE for the short year + copyright holder(s) template.

from r-pkgs.

wch avatar wch commented on August 17, 2024

That sounds like the inverse of what I suggested, but if that's the way to pass R CMD check, I guess that's the way to do it.

That reminds me: another thing that could really use clarification is how to handle the inclusion of third-party libraries with their various licenses. We've done it a few different ways in different repos, mostly because over time, CRAN has changed what they've told us to do.

from r-pkgs.

jennybc avatar jennybc commented on August 17, 2024

how to handle the inclusion of third-party libraries with their various licenses

My most recent experience of this is with readxl and I was also instructed to put this in LICENSE.note (readxl is GPL-3, libxls is BSD 2):

https://github.com/tidyverse/readxl/blob/master/LICENSE.note

And then the authors of the embedded libraries are also listed as ctb and cph. This all seems consistent with the websocket notes, yes?

from r-pkgs.

wch avatar wch commented on August 17, 2024

What you have in readxl does appear to be consistent with what they asked for with websocket.

One thing that's missing from both packages is actual license text for the package itself; CRAN doesn't think it's important, but I think we should try to figure out some way to include it.

Just to add a bit of historical context: with Shiny, it took some back and forth before CRAN was satisfied, and the end result is the DESCRIPTION has License: GPL-3 | file LICENSE, and the text of the licenses for the included libraries are in LICENSE.

from r-pkgs.

jennybc avatar jennybc commented on August 17, 2024

@hadley Is this issue on your radar? I believe it's our oldest!

from r-pkgs.

hadley avatar hadley commented on August 17, 2024

Yes, this is mostly handled in the new license chapter, so I think we can close.

from r-pkgs.

Related Issues (20)

Recommend Projects

  • React photo React

    A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.

  • Vue.js photo Vue.js

    🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.

  • Typescript photo Typescript

    TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.

  • TensorFlow photo TensorFlow

    An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone

  • Django photo Django

    The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

  • D3 photo D3

    Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉

Recommend Topics

  • javascript

    JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.

  • web

    Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.

  • server

    A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.

  • Machine learning

    Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.

  • Game

    Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.

Recommend Org

  • Facebook photo Facebook

    We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.

  • Microsoft photo Microsoft

    Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.

  • Google photo Google

    Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.

  • D3 photo D3

    Data-Driven Documents codes.