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

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Roel Janssen writes:
>>>
>>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> 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.

You’re right.  I misremembered.  It’s only these joint license
declarations like “GPL-2 | GPL-3” that effectively mean “or later”.  (It
is impossible to express “or later” in canonical R license fields.)

> 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..

Actually, the declaration in this package means “either this or that”
license.

See https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#The-DESCRIPTION-file

    “The mandatory ‘License’ field in the DESCRIPTION file should
     specify the license of the package in a standardized
     form. Alternatives are indicated via vertical bars.”

Your patch is fine if you add a comment above the license field that
states that these one of these two licenses may be choosen.

~~ Ricardo