You are addressing interpretation of "a license", while my concern is not with the licenses themselves but with the identification of which code goes with which license. Assuming that you will need to retain lawyers to decide how to handle a license in a particular use case may be reasonable, but assuming you will also use them to parse the files in the package seems rather less reasonable IMO when you have such a clear alternative (packaging).
On October 3, 2020 9:02:02 AM PDT, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > >On 3 October 2020 at 09:54, Hadley Wickham wrote: >| I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, especially given that >| "compatibility" is not symmetric. For example, you can include MIT >license >| code in a GPL licensed package; you can not include GPL licensed code >| inside an MIT licensed package. There are some rough guidelines at >| https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#license-compatibility. > >One approach for issues such as legal matters is to consult >subject-matter >experts which is why I pointed (in a prior private message spawned by >this >same thread) to sites such as > > https://tldrlegal.com/ > https://choosealicense.com/ > >Dirk -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
