Message-ID: <0dbd354c-3c8d-6dc4-2131-0e2ac9142d86@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-10-22T16:12:25Z
From: Duncan Murdoch
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] Licenses
In-Reply-To: <C795AF6F-DD80-497F-9602-F1C829AD70E0@me.com>
On 22/10/2020 11:55 a.m., Marc Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Marc Schwartz <marc_schwartz at me.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Kevin R. Coombes <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am developing a package and getting a NOTE from R CMD check about licenses and ultimate dependencies on a restrictive license, which I can't figure out how to fix.
>>>
>>> My package imports flowCore, which has an Artistic-2.0 license.
>>> But flowCore imports cytolib, which has a license from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center that prohibits commercial use.
>>>
>>> I tried using the same license as flowCore, but still get the NOTE. Does anyone know which licenses can be used to be compatible with the Fred Hutch license? Or can I just do what flowCore apparently does and ignore the NOTE?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I have not looked at BioC's licensing requirements, but presumably, they are ok with the non-commercial use restrictions placed on users of cytolib, thus also on flowCore.
>>
>> If you want your package to be on CRAN, those restrictions on users are not allowed by CRAN's policy:
>>
>> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
>>
>> "Such packages are not permitted to require (e.g., by specifying in ?Depends?, ?Imports? or ?LinkingTo? fields) directly or indirectly a package or external software which restricts users or usage."
>>
>>
>> Thus, you would seem to need to make a decision on hosting your package on CRAN, but without the need to import from flowCore/cytolib, or consider hosting your package on BioC, with the attendant restrictions on commercial use.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marc Schwartz
>
>
> Well....
>
> Now that I look at:
>
> https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/share/licenses/license.db
>
> there are a few licenses listed there that do place restrictions on commercial use.
>
> These include some Creative Commons Non-Commercial use variants and the ACM license.
>
> Is the license DB file out of date, or is there an apparent conflict with the CRAN policy that I quoted above?
>
> Anyone with an ability to comment?
Presumably CRAN would not accept the non-FOSS licenses that are listed
in license.db, but R could still do computations on them, as described
in ?library in the "Licenses" section.
Duncan Murdoch