Skip to content
Prev 6079 / 12125 Next
Original Raw

[R-pkg-devel] best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package

Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 2 October 2020 at 14:44, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
| if you want clarity in the minds of _users_ I would beg you to split the code into two packages. People will likely either be afraid of the GPL bogey man and refrain from utilizing your MIT code as permitted or fail to honor the GPL terms correctly if both are in the same package.

Have you read R's own doc/COPYRIGHTS ?

   https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/doc/COPYRIGHTS

In short the opposite of what you just suggest. 

Also, labels such as "more liberal" or "permissive" or "bogey man" are not
exactly unambiguous.  Different people can and do have different views here.
I would suggest using simpler terms such as "different". What matters is that
the licenses permit open source use while ensuring they are compatible which
is generally the case these days.

Dirk

Thread (8 messages)

Ben Bolker best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 2 Hadley Wickham best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 2 Jeff Newmiller best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 2 Dirk Eddelbuettel best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 2 Hadley Wickham best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 3 Dirk Eddelbuettel best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 3 Jeff Newmiller best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 3 Hadley Wickham best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package Oct 3