unlicense

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

unlicense

Charles Geyer
I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?

--
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
[hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Avraham Adler
A number of years ago I asked here for the ISC to be added and was told you
have to ask CRAN, not Rd.

Good luck,

Avi

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM Charles Geyer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>
> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Charles Geyer
>
> Professor, School of Statistics
>
> Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
>
> University of Minnesota
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> [hidden email] mailing list
>
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Duncan Murdoch-2
In reply to this post by Charles Geyer
On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>

That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
that it's a good license for open source software?

If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to
recognize it.

Duncan Murdoch

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

frederik-2
I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
than an honest request for information.

As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
support the inclusion of some such option.

FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns
up unlicense.org as the second result.

Frederick

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:

> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
> > I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
> > licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
> >
>
> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
> that it's a good license for open source software?
>
> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
> it.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Charles Geyer-2
Actually, CRAN does have an alternative to this.  "License: Unlimited"
can be used in the DESCRIPTION file, but does less than the cited
"unlicense".

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
> than an honest request for information.
>
> As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
> an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
> support the inclusion of some such option.
>
> FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns
> up unlicense.org as the second result.
>
> Frederick
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>> > I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>> > licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>> >
>>
>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>
>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
>> it.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Dirk Eddelbuettel
In reply to this post by frederik-2

On 13 January 2017 at 17:43, [hidden email] wrote:
| I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
| than an honest request for information.
|
| As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
| an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
| support the inclusion of some such option.
|
| FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns
| up unlicense.org as the second result.

You missed the gist of Duncan's post: unless/until a body with authority on
which licenses interoperate blesses this one, it is not on the radar.

In short, it has to be compatible with other key OSS licenses. The
documentation put forward says nothing about that, which is a problem.

Dirk

--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | [hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Deepayan Sarkar
In reply to this post by Duncan Murdoch-2
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>
>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>
>
> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
> that it's a good license for open source software?
>
> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
> it.

Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/

Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
"public domain".  The first two examples I found:

https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1

This follows the format explained in
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
shorthand (e.g., geoknife).

https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that

<quote>

Licenses currently found in Debian main include:

- ...
- ...
- public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)

</quote>

The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
public-domain + file LICENSE".

-Deepayan

> Duncan Murdoch
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Uwe Ligges-3
Dear all,

from "Writing R Extensions":

The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
copyright laws).

If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g.,
using GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms
should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file
LICENSE’ (or ‘+ file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
corresponding individual license specification.
...
Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license,
since it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."

So perhaps you aim for
License: Unlimited

Best,
Uwe Ligges




On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>>
>>
>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>
>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
>> it.
>
> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
>
> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
>
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>
> This follows the format explained in
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
>
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
>
> <quote>
>
> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
>
> - ...
> - ...
> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
>
> </quote>
>
> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
> public-domain + file LICENSE".
>
> -Deepayan
>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

R devel mailing list
Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.

Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
acceptable license.  To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.

Thanks,

Karl

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> from "Writing R Extensions":
>
> The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
> copyright laws).
>
> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using
> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be
> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+
> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
> corresponding individual license specification.
> ...
> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since
> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."
>
> So perhaps you aim for
> License: Unlimited
>
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
>>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>>
>>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>
>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
>> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
>>
>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>
>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>
>> This follows the format explained in
>>
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
>> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
>> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
>>
>> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
>>
>> - ...
>> - ...
>> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
>> public-domain + file LICENSE".
>>
>> -Deepayan
>>
>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Uwe Ligges-3


On 18.01.2017 00:13, Karl Millar wrote:
> Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
>
> Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
> our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
> acceptable license.  To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.


Karl,

thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what
the maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already
know that "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to
the "Unlimited" options.

We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for
"freeware". Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard
license comes closest to what these maintainers probably aim at and will
work more or less globally, i.e. not only in the US?

Best,
Uwe



> Thanks,
>
> Karl
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> from "Writing R Extensions":
>>
>> The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
>> copyright laws).
>>
>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using
>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should be
>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+
>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
>> corresponding individual license specification.
>> ...
>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license, since
>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."
>>
>> So perhaps you aim for
>> License: Unlimited
>>
>> Best,
>> Uwe Ligges
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>>>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
>>>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>>>
>>>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>>>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>>>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>
>>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
>>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
>>> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
>>>
>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>>
>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>>
>>> This follows the format explained in
>>>
>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
>>> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
>>> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
>>>
>>> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
>>>
>>> - ...
>>> - ...
>>> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
>>> public-domain + file LICENSE".
>>>
>>> -Deepayan
>>>
>>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

R devel mailing list
Unfortunately, our lawyers say that they can't give legal advice in
this context.

My question would be, what are people looking for that the MIT or
2-clause BSD license don't provide?  They're short, clear, widely
accepted and very permissive.  Another possibility might be to
dual-license packages with both an OSI-approved license and
whatever-else-you-like, e.g.  'MIT | <my_unusual_license>', but IIUC
there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved
license.

Karl


On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 18.01.2017 00:13, Karl Millar wrote:
>>
>> Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
>>
>> Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
>> our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
>> acceptable license.  To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
>> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.
>
>
>
> Karl,
>
> thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what the
> maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know that
> "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the
> "Unlimited" options.
>
> We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for "freeware".
> Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes closest
> to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less
> globally, i.e. not only in the US?
>
> Best,
> Uwe
>
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> from "Writing R Extensions":
>>>
>>> The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
>>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
>>> copyright laws).
>>>
>>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g.,
>>> using
>>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should
>>> be
>>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or
>>> ‘+
>>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
>>> corresponding individual license specification.
>>> ...
>>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license,
>>> since
>>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."
>>>
>>> So perhaps you aim for
>>> License: Unlimited
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Uwe Ligges
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>>>>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you
>>>>> thinks
>>>>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>>>>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>>>>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to
>>>>> recognize
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>>
>>>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
>>>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
>>>> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
>>>>
>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>>>
>>>> This follows the format explained in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>>>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
>>>> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
>>>> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>>
>>>> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
>>>>
>>>> - ...
>>>> - ...
>>>> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
>>>>
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
>>>> public-domain + file LICENSE".
>>>>
>>>> -Deepayan
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Kevin Ushey
The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of free and GPL-compatible
software licenses here:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense

It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible license;
however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is indeed a license
approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be the primary license
recommended by the FSF for software intended for the public domain.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Karl Millar via R-devel <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, our lawyers say that they can't give legal advice in
> this context.
>
> My question would be, what are people looking for that the MIT or
> 2-clause BSD license don't provide?  They're short, clear, widely
> accepted and very permissive.  Another possibility might be to
> dual-license packages with both an OSI-approved license and
> whatever-else-you-like, e.g.  'MIT | <my_unusual_license>', but IIUC
> there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved
> license.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 18.01.2017 00:13, Karl Millar wrote:
> >>
> >> Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
> >>
> >> Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
> >> our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
> >> acceptable license.  To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
> >> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl,
> >
> > thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what
> the
> > maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know
> that
> > "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the
> > "Unlimited" options.
> >
> > We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for
> "freeware".
> > Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes
> closest
> > to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less
> > globally, i.e. not only in the US?
> >
> > Best,
> > Uwe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> from "Writing R Extensions":
> >>>
> >>> The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
> >>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws
> (including
> >>> copyright laws).
> >>>
> >>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g.,
> >>> using
> >>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms
> should
> >>> be
> >>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’
> (or
> >>> ‘+
> >>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
> >>> corresponding individual license specification.
> >>> ...
> >>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license,
> >>> since
> >>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."
> >>>
> >>> So perhaps you aim for
> >>> License: Unlimited
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Uwe Ligges
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
> >>>>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you
> >>>>> thinks
> >>>>> that it's a good license for open source software?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a
> FOSS
> >>>>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then
> CRAN
> >>>>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to
> >>>>> recognize
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
> >>>>
> >>>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
> >>>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
> >>>> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/
> copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
> >>>>
> >>>> This follows the format explained in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-
> format/1.0/#license-specification,
> >>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
> >>>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
> >>>> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
> >>>> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
> >>>>
> >>>> <quote>
> >>>>
> >>>> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
> >>>>
> >>>> - ...
> >>>> - ...
> >>>> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
> >>>>
> >>>> </quote>
> >>>>
> >>>> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
> >>>> public-domain + file LICENSE".
> >>>>
> >>>> -Deepayan
> >>>>
> >>>>> Duncan Murdoch
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ______________________________________________
> >>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
> >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________
> >>>> [hidden email] mailing list
> >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> [hidden email] mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

braverock

On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:
> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible
> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is
> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be
> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for
> the public domain.

I'd second the recommendation for CC0.  Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms
I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license.

 - Brian

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Charles Geyer
In that case, perhaps the question could be changed to could CC0 be
added to the list of R licences.  Right now the only CC licence that
is in the R licenses is CC-BY-SA-4.0.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible
>> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is
>> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be
>> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for
>> the public domain.
>
> I'd second the recommendation for CC0.  Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms
> I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license.
>
>  - Brian
>



--
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
[hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Peter Dalgaard-2
In reply to this post by R devel mailing list
Probably, one side of the issue is that people are unaware of the dangers of overly permissive statements, like the infamous "collection copyright" which originally applied to collections of medieval music by anonymous composers, but extends to the individual items, so that you can't (say) photocopy "Greensleeves" for classroom use without infringing.

However, this has also been applied to software collections harvested from the public domain; the notorious example being the Numerical Recipes book claiming licenses to use the subroutines it contained. This is the sort of thing that makes IP lawyers uncomfortable with anything except well standardized licenses.

-pd

On 18 Jan 2017, at 02:32 , Karl Millar via R-devel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, our lawyers say that they can't give legal advice in
> this context.
>
> My question would be, what are people looking for that the MIT or
> 2-clause BSD license don't provide?  They're short, clear, widely
> accepted and very permissive.  Another possibility might be to
> dual-license packages with both an OSI-approved license and
> whatever-else-you-like, e.g.  'MIT | <my_unusual_license>', but IIUC
> there's a bunch more complexity there than just using an OSI-approved
> license.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Uwe Ligges
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.01.2017 00:13, Karl Millar wrote:
>>>
>>> Please don't use 'Unlimited' or 'Unlimited + ...'.
>>>
>>> Google's lawyers don't recognize 'Unlimited' as being open-source, so
>>> our policy doesn't allow us to use such packages due to lack of an
>>> acceptable license.  To our lawyers, 'Unlimited + file LICENSE' means
>>> something very different than it presumably means to Uwe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Karl,
>>
>> thanks for this comment. What we like to hear now is a suggestion what the
>> maintainer is supposed to do to get what he aims at, as we already know that
>> "freeware" does not work at all and was hard enough to get to the
>> "Unlimited" options.
>>
>> We have many CRAN requests asking for what they should write for "freeware".
>> Can we get an opinion from your layers which standard license comes closest
>> to what these maintainers probably aim at and will work more or less
>> globally, i.e. not only in the US?
>>
>> Best,
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Uwe Ligges
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> from "Writing R Extensions":
>>>>
>>>> The string ‘Unlimited’, meaning that there are no restrictions on
>>>> distribution or use other than those imposed by relevant laws (including
>>>> copyright laws).
>>>>
>>>> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g.,
>>>> using
>>>> GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an attribution clause), the additional terms should
>>>> be
>>>> placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or
>>>> ‘+
>>>> file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the
>>>> corresponding individual license specification.
>>>> ...
>>>> Please note in particular that “Public domain” is not a valid license,
>>>> since
>>>> it is not recognized in some jurisdictions."
>>>>
>>>> So perhaps you aim for
>>>> License: Unlimited
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Uwe Ligges
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14.01.2017 07:53, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>>>>>>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you
>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>> that it's a good license for open source software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
>>>>>> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
>>>>>> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to
>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
>>>>> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
>>>>> "public domain".  The first two examples I found:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>>>>
>>>>> This follows the format explained in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>>>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>>>>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
>>>>> equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
>>>>> shorthand (e.g., geoknife).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
>>>>>
>>>>> - ...
>>>>> - ...
>>>>> - public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
>>>>>
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
>>>>> public-domain + file LICENSE".
>>>>>
>>>>> -Deepayan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: [hidden email]  Priv: [hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Kurt Hornik-5
In reply to this post by Charles Geyer
>>>>> Charles Geyer writes:

> In that case, perhaps the question could be changed to could CC0 be
> added to the list of R licences.  Right now the only CC licence that
> is in the R licenses is CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Hmm, I see

Name: CC0
FSF: free_and_GPLv3_compatible (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0)
OSI: NA (https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero)
URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
FOSS: yes

in the R license db ...

-k

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>>> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible
>>> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is
>>> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be
>>> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for
>>> the public domain.
>>
>> I'd second the recommendation for CC0.  Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms
>> I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license.
>>
>> - Brian
>>



> --
> Charles Geyer
> Professor, School of Statistics
> Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
> University of Minnesota
> [hidden email]

> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: unlicense

Charles Geyer
I was looking at https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/ which is first
when you google for "R licenses".  Silly me.  Kurt says I should have
been looking at share/licenses/license.db in the R source tree.
Thanks.  I'm satisfied now.

I don't have any CRAN packages with "Unlimited" on them, but I do have
some on github that are just examples for teaching.  I'll change them
to CC0.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Kurt Hornik <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>>>> Charles Geyer writes:
>
>> In that case, perhaps the question could be changed to could CC0 be
>> added to the list of R licences.  Right now the only CC licence that
>> is in the R licenses is CC-BY-SA-4.0.
>
> Hmm, I see
>
> Name: CC0
> FSF: free_and_GPLv3_compatible (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0)
> OSI: NA (https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero)
> URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
> FOSS: yes
>
> in the R license db ...
>
> -k
>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:46 -0500, Kevin Ushey wrote:
>>>> It appears that Unlicense is considered a free and GPL-compatible
>>>> license; however, the page does suggest using CC0 instead (which is
>>>> indeed a license approved / recognized by CRAN). CC0 appears to be
>>>> the primary license recommended by the FSF for software intended for
>>>> the public domain.
>>>
>>> I'd second the recommendation for CC0.  Lawyers at IP-restrictive firms
>>> I've worked for in the past have been OK with this license.
>>>
>>> - Brian
>>>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Charles Geyer
>> Professor, School of Statistics
>> Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
>> University of Minnesota
>> [hidden email]
>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



--
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
[hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel