[R-pkg-devel] Licenses
I do not want to make many general comments about licenses in public, as this is a very difficult matter and I am not a lawyer. But let me cite from the CRAN policies: "Packages with licenses not listed at https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/share/licenses/license.db will generally not be accepted. " Further, I see in the discussions that you talked about depending on a software with a non-FOSS license. The CRAN team's point of view, for short, is: A package with a FOSS license cannot strictly depend on a package/software that is non-FOSS. Obviously, the FOSS package cannot be used under its own license conditions in that case. Best, Uwe Ligges
On 23.10.2020 14:25, Ege Rubak wrote:
Hi all, My two cents are below Marc's summary here: On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 20:33 -0400, Marc Schwartz wrote:
Right now, the interpretation, without further clarification from CRAN, would be, it is ok for a package to be on CRAN with license based usage restrictions included (e.g. for non-commercial use), but a package on CRAN, irrespective of it's own license, cannot "interact" with other packages that do have restrictions...which seems inconsistent.
It depends a bit what is meant by "interact". Years ago `spatstat` used `gpclib` with a non-commercial license to do polygonal operations. The solution was to list `gpclib` in `Suggests` and require the user to make an active choice to use this piece of software with a warning about non-commercial use. I find this to be an OK solution in lack of completely free alternatives. These days `gpclib` is still on CRAN and only has reverse `Suggests` and `Enhances`, so that seems fairly consistent. In the long run this was unsatisfatory and our specific problem was solved by Adrian Baddeley by making the `polyclip` package. Kind regards, Ege
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel