geyer at umn.edu
Sat Jan 14 06:52:13 CET 2017
Actually, CRAN does have an alternative to this. "License: Unlimited"
can be used in the DESCRIPTION file, but does less than the cited
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, <frederik at ofb.net> 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.
> 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
>> Duncan Murdoch
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel