From geyer at umn.edu  Sat Jan 14 06:52:13 2017
From: geyer at umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:52:13 -0600
Subject: [Rd] unlicense
In-Reply-To: <20170114014316.GA29294@ofb.net>
References: <CAKctRd3bWPGhzN3McdJQovTthUt=AYVQV3g-ZKNvEt5jZ1JnmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<09cb536a-cdba-1eeb-b6a0-4bad571032bd@gmail.com>
	<20170114014316.GA29294@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <CAKctRd2nz6MDxDGNPOBj-uvmXgrNaZeg9gjTHfPQSvjOCrz8NA@mail.gmail.com>

Actually, CRAN does have an alternative to this.  "License: Unlimited"
can be used in the DESCRIPTION file, but does less than the cited
"unlicense".

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.
>
> Frederick
>
> 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
>> it.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>



[Rd] unlicense
Charles Geyer