Message-ID: <CABdHhvGTDeUW8tUEhC0a0JKqLhS4=dHLdkEBRrOJgp-o1iOTPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: 2020-10-02T20:16:36Z
From: Hadley Wickham
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] best practices for handling a mixed-licensed package
In-Reply-To: <f20c4a70-0a64-9eeb-0ddc-95808d56c6c6@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:51 PM Ben Bolker <bbolker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A collaborator is arguing that it's a good idea to license one small
> component of a package under the MIT license, while the rest of it
> remains GPL >=2.
>
> Suppose this is feasible. How do I specify the license? As far as I
> can tell from
> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Licensing
> the DESCRIPTION file should have
>
> License: file LICENSE
> License_is_FOSS: yes
> License_restricts_use: no
>
> But I can't figure out what should go in the LICENSE file. The one
> file that contains the MIT-licensed components contains the relevant
> license text in its body.
>
> License: GPL (>=2) | MIT + file LICENSE
>
> doesn't seem right, because these are not *alternative* licenses. Would
> "GPL (>=2) + file LICENSE" be OK? We could explain the situation in
> LICENSE.note (WRE says "To include comments about the licensing rather
> than the body of a license, use a file named something like
> LICENSE.note. ")
>
> Could file LICENSE contain
>
> The code in this package is licensed under GPL >=2 (see
> https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-2,
> https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/GPL-3, except for <FILE xxx>, which
> is under the MIT license (see <FILE xxx for details>).
> ?
>
I have some recommendations at
https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#code-you-bundle, but in brief use License:
GPL (>= 2) and then explain in LICENSE.note which components have more
liberal licenses.
Hadley
--
http://hadley.nz
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]