When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEAR and COPYRIGHT HOLDER. My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original library authors? Regards, Charles
[R-pkg-devel] Extending MIT software
5 messages · Thomas Petzoldt, Neal Fultz, Gábor Csárdi +1 more
Hi, I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the MIT license allows re-licensing of derived work under the GPL. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License So what speaks against releasing your derived work under the GPL >= 2? Thomas
On 28.05.2015 17:48, Charles Determan wrote:
When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEAR and COPYRIGHT HOLDER. My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original library authors? Regards, Charles
Dr. Thomas Petzoldt Technische Universitaet Dresden Faculty of Environmental Sciences Institute of Hydrobiology 01062 Dresden, Germany E-Mail: thomas.petzoldt at tu-dresden.de http://tu-dresden.de/Members/thomas.petzoldt
IANAL, but if you are just importing or depending on another package, you shouldn't need to worry about this. If you copied their code into your own package, you should probably rethink your approach. At my job, several of my coworkers had copy/pasted code from stack overflow, which carries a CC license. This is hypothetically a problem if anyone ever tried to buy our code base or company. To clean it up, I moved all of the functions into a separate stackoverflow package which had the correct license and attribution. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Charles Determan <cdetermanjr at gmail.com> wrote:
When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that
package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT
license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that
has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEAR
and COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this
given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original
library authors?
Regards,
Charles
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
IANAL, too, but if you are indeed extending (i.e. embedding or copying) another package, then you need to put all copyright holders into the LICENSE file. In the individual files, you can explain who has the copyright for what. If you don't change the copied files at all, that is simple, just add yourself as copyright holder to the new files you create. Gabor On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Charles Determan
<cdetermanjr at gmail.com> wrote:
When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that
package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT
license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that
has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEAR
and COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this
given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original
library authors?
Regards,
Charles
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Thank you Thomas, I guess there is nothing, that I am aware of, that prevents me from releasing with GPL >= 2 but I wanted to get some insights as to what would be a best practice. I prefer to give as much credit as possible where it is do. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Petzoldt <
Thomas.Petzoldt at tu-dresden.de> wrote:
Hi, I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the MIT license allows re-licensing of derived work under the GPL. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License So what speaks against releasing your derived work under the GPL >= 2? Thomas On 28.05.2015 17:48, Charles Determan wrote:
When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEAR and COPYRIGHT HOLDER. My question is, would the copyright holder be just the authors for this given R package or a combination of the R package authors and the original library authors? Regards, Charles
-- Dr. Thomas Petzoldt Technische Universitaet Dresden Faculty of Environmental Sciences Institute of Hydrobiology 01062 Dresden, Germany E-Mail: thomas.petzoldt at tu-dresden.de http://tu-dresden.de/Members/thomas.petzoldt
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel