Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself, Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 07:52:18AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > What I'm saying is that IMHO the only license requirement (the
> > > second paragraph of it that you reported above, about including
> > > the copyright notice *and* the permission notice in any copy of
> > > the software) is not fulfilled by R packages.
> > 
> > Thanks for clarifying.
> > 
> > Can you point us to a representative source package that you think has
> > this problem?
>
> src:r-cran-praise (as of current version 1.0.0-1) is a good example.

I see. The upstream source does not include the “above copyright notice
and this permission notice” as required by the license conditions.

That is a violation of the license conditions, I agree.

> As also pabs said [1] we should be good enough, but I'd prefer we
> could drop the enough here.
>
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2016/03/msg00067.html

This issue should be resolved by the upstream distributor, as I agree
with you that they are not compliant with the conditions of the license.
You may want to have that discussion with them.

I also agree with Paul Wise, that the Debian source package conforms to
the license conditions (by always including the required text). So any
redistributor of Debian, or this component from Debian, will by default
not violate those conditions.

-- 
 \       “bash awk grep perl sed, df du, du-du du-du, vi troff su fsck |
  `\                     rm * halt LART LART LART!” —The Swedish BOFH, |
_o__)                                            alt.sysadmin.recovery |
Ben Finney