From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] gnu: Add r-bigmemory-sri. Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 15:19:36 +0100 Message-ID: <87fun8ir2f.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87a8dohd7q.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgx8jja2.fsf@elephly.net> <87lgx4c1wj.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2ckn0x1.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c2Iry-00057h-OY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 10:20:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c2Irx-0007C5-MC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 10:19:54 -0400 In-reply-to: <87k2ckn0x1.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Roel Janssen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Roel Janssen writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Roel Janssen writes: >>>> + (description "This package provides a shared resource interface for the >>>> +bigmemory and synchronicity packages.") >>>> + (license (list license:lgpl3 license:asl2.0)))) >>> >>> What does this list mean? >>> Also: is this LGPL3+ or LGPL3 only? >> >> The CRAN page lists LGPL3 explicitly, but that could be imprecise ... >> The source code package does not contain any other license indication >> than waht is stated in the DESCRIPTION file (which states LGPL3 and >> Apache Software License 2.0). >> >> See: >> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bigmemory.sri/ >> >> So, I think the only thing I can do is just follow what has been stated, >> which is LGPL3 (precisely this) and Apache Software License 2.0. > > I don't know how to proceed now. I think it's fine as the list of > licenses is the list of licenses they provide. > > Are these licenses incompatible? If so, then there's nothing I can do > either, because these are the licenses that are provided.. Usually, what we do for R is to assume “or later” because that’s how things are usually done on CRAN. (They also automatically expand license declarations.) This is not the first time this question has come up and each time I fail to find the appropriate reference for this claim… ~~ Ricardo