Re: [PATCH 2/4] gnu: Add r-bigmemory-sri.

[Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
>>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> 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.)

Well I don't think we can do that in this case because that's not what
the license field says.  In the code there's no license at all, so that
makes it even more difficult.

> This is not the first time this question has come up and each time I
> fail to find the appropriate reference for this claim…

I guess this is about the possible license incompatibility between LGPLv3
and Apache?  I tried to explain that in any case, there's nothing I can
do about it anyway..

Should I drop the patch series then?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen