Thanks to all for your helpful replies.
It seems reasonable to consider that the whole package is indeed
licensed under GPL >= 3, and I can therefore remove the LICENSE file.
The Qhull COPYING.txt notice is included in the inst/doc directory, as
required by the Qhull licence, so I think all should
I agree with Brian. This type of license is classified by the Free
Software Foundation as "lax" or "permissive" because it does not
prevent incorporation of the code into proprietary software.
Here is what Richard Stallman has to say: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/
license-compatibility.en.html
"[
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:45 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen
wrote:
> There are 3 solutions. (1) You (get permission) to change the library to
> GPL. (2) You get permission to change the license of the R code to
> whatever license the library is released under. (3) you split the package.
For complete
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see why the entire package can't be
released under GPL, while also respecting the QHull license for the
QHull code and the derived QHull portions.
Many existing R packages released under GPL, and R itself, include BSD
and MIT licensed code.
The QHull license is a ver
There are 3 solutions. (1) You (get permission) to change the library to
GPL. (2) You get permission to change the license of the R code to
whatever license the library is released under. (3) you split the package.
You have investigated (1) and it does not work. I would suggest thinking
about
