Kurt.Hornik at wu.ac.at
Wed Jan 18 16:44:07 CET 2017
>>>>> 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
FSF: free_and_GPLv3_compatible (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0)
OSI: NA (https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero)
in the R license db ...
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian G. Peterson <brian at braverock.com> 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
> charlie at stat.umn.edu
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel