From brian at braverock.com  Wed Jan 18 14:23:39 2017
From: brian at braverock.com (Brian G. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:23:39 -0600
Subject: [Rd] unlicense
In-Reply-To: <CAJXgQP1DU_18xfLhMrqC=qvpcb77s5m3c5rEymLwr7vLikK3UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKctRd3bWPGhzN3McdJQovTthUt=AYVQV3g-ZKNvEt5jZ1JnmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<09cb536a-cdba-1eeb-b6a0-4bad571032bd@gmail.com>
	<CADfFDC5HB+qCk0it_AW9wuHSHdDqJ-rRW=NeL=S3SYrPR5GZ1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<c9c4e11d-4476-ed46-3ff7-ed68c3a83145@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
	<CABz6aZdx9PXcU2fRtXRyJ_k_7BVW+jjTcnka_2o2zvNW+8KQUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<a9b2554d-8b7e-06b5-8786-26d53e1971a5@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
	<CABz6aZevNNXpSZUY-OxQe+JJZe9OKufnVFExEr7rQ7QHVnT2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJXgQP1DU_18xfLhMrqC=qvpcb77s5m3c5rEymLwr7vLikK3UA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1484745819.15208.18.camel@braverock.com>


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



[Rd] unlicense
Brian G. Peterson