Bug#818622: RFS: r-cran-r6/2.1.2-1
On 20/03/16 06:02, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> control: tag -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 !
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:47:27PM +0100, Gordon Ball wrote:
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "r-cran-r6"
>
> here we go :)
>
Thank you for taking the time to look at these packages.
>> * Package name : r-cran-r6 Version : 2.1.2-1 Upstream
>> Author : Winston Chang <winston@stdout.org> * URL :
>> https://github.com/wch/R6 * License : MIT Section
>> : gnu-r
>>
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/r-cran-r6/r-cran-r6_2.1.2-1.dsc
>
>>
> well, it looks good (even if it uses CDBS which I don't like, but I
> know there is the well-maintained r-base-dev that works pretty well
> for R).
Yes, it seemed best to be consistent with the rest of the r- ecosystem.
>
> though, you wrote that this packages uses the MIT license (though
> you maybe want "Expat" instead), except for citing the MIT license
> in the DESCRPTION file, I can't find any copy of the license
> itself. This is actually a violation of the MIT. Please clarify 1)
> how you could know upstream intended *that* MIT license (there are
> several, you reported the most common one called Expat) 2) really
> upstream needs to ship one copy of it.
>
The R extension manual [1], section 1.1.2, gives a list of accepted
short license names (including "MIT") and indicates they refer to the
copies on the R licensing page [2]. This gives MIT/Expat in template
form [3]. The text in d/copyright should be a copy of [3] starting
from "Permission". Admittedly that file does indicate that a copy
should have been included as the LICENSE file, but I think that
following the R manual to deduce this is the correct form of the
license is valid.
Is the contents of LICENSE a blocker until and unless upstream changes
this, or can the intent be taken as sufficiently clear?
[1]: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html
[2]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/
[3]: https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/MIT
Reply to: