Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Need a license file #47

Open
kellijohnson-NOAA opened this issue Oct 16, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Need a license file #47

kellijohnson-NOAA opened this issue Oct 16, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator 

❯ checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... WARNING
  Non-standard license specification:
    `use_mit_license()`, `use_gpl3_license()` or friends to pick a
    license

Can someone more well versed in NOAA policies help pick a license file or how we specify it is part of the public domain?
@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Oct 16, 2023
@k-doering-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

This is not my project, but wanted to provide some potential options!
As long as it makes sense for all the collaborators, picking an open source license is probably appropriate. However, I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand all the legal implications of the options.

  • It looks like there is currently a GPL3 license, which you could stick with. It is an open source license, but is a "copy-left", which is a little less permissive than MIT. copy left means projects that use your R package code also need a GPL license.
  • Other more permissive options are MIT and the unlicense. The unlicense is fairly new, but probably as close in spirit to CC0 as possible, yet it is actually Open source initiative approved and intended for software (CC0 is not intended for software).
  • I've heard Apache 2.0 used, but don't know much about it.

kellijohnson-NOAA added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2023
@kellijohnson-NOAA
fix(DESCRIPTION): include license type
85105f0 
Previously the default value from usethis:: was in the License portion
of the DESCRIPTION file. And, thanks to @k-doering-NOAA for making me
aware that we had a license file. `check()` is no longer giving me
errors.
Close #47
If anyone wishes to propose that we change the type based on those
that are listed in the above issue then we should open a new issue
and everyone would need to agree on the new type. See guidance at
https://r-pkgs.org/license.html
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@kellijohnson-NOAA @k-doering-NOAA