deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 07:53:14 CET 2017
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> 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
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:
This follows the format explained in
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
Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
- public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)
The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
public-domain + file LICENSE".
> Duncan Murdoch
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel