[R-pkg-devel] best LICENSE practices: AGPL-3 + LaTeX Project Public License

[Hadley Wickham]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:11 AM Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>    In the process of trying to get a package to build successfully on
> r-hub's Fedora platform, I had to add a whole bunch of LaTeX .sty files
> to the vignette directory.  One of these was collectbox.sty, which
> triggers the NOTE
>
> ---
> NOTE
> The following files contain a license that requires
> distribution of original sources:
>    ‘collectbox.sty’
> ---
>
>    The licensing/copyright information in collectbox.sty is as follows:
>
>
> %% The original source files were:
> %%
> %% collectbox.dtx  (with options: `collectbox.sty')
> %%
> %% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
> %%
> %% For the copyright see the source file.
> %%
> %% Any modified versions of this file must be renamed
> %% with new filenames distinct from collectbox.sty.
> %%
> %% For distribution of the original source see the terms
> %% for copying and modification in the file collectbox.dtx.
> %%
> %% This generated file may be distributed as long as the
> %% original source files, as listed above, are part of the
> %% same distribution. (The sources need not necessarily be
> %% in the same archive or directory.)
> %% Copyright (C) 2012 by Martin Scharrer <martin using scharrer-online.de>
> %% --------------------------------------------------------------------
> %% This work may be distributed and/or modified under the
> %% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3
> %% of this license or (at your option) any later version.
> %% The latest version of this license is in
> %%   http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
> %% and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
> %% version 2005/12/01 or later.
>
>     So I put collectbox.dtx into the inst/misc directory in the package.
> Fine.
>
>   Now, what do I need to do to (1) make sure that my DESCRIPTION file is
> correct and (2) hopefully, suppress the NOTE so I don't have to explain
> it to the CRAN maintainers every time?
>
> * Do I change the LICENCE line (which is currently AGPL-3)? According to
> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Licensing it would
> seem I would have to switch to "file LICENCE" (adding a
> "Licence_is_FOSS: yes"), where "LICENCE" contains something like
>
> package code licensed under AGPL-3; file vignettes/collectbox.sty is
> under the LaTeX Project Public License (source provided in
> misc/collectbox.dtx)
>
> ? Should it say "file LICENCE" or "AGPL-3 + file LICENCE" ?
>
> * Do I just include the files without comment, since I have complied (as
> far as I can tell) with the terms of the LPPL?

It's my understanding that the goal of the license field is to list
one license that the entire package can be distributed under (i.e. is
compatible with all licenses in the package). As long as you believe
that LPPL is compatible with the AGPL-3, then it's fine to keep the
license as AGPL-3.

I don't believe it would be correct to use "AGPL-3 + file LICENSE` as
R-exts only lists three uses of file LICENSE, none of which apply to
your case:

> If a package license restricts a base license (where permitted, e.g., using GPL-3 or AGPL-3 with an
> attribution clause), the additional terms should be placed in file LICENSE (or LICENCE), and the
> string ‘+ file LICENSE’ (or ‘+ file LICENCE’, respectively) should be appended to the corresponding
> individual license specification.

> The optional file LICENSE/LICENCE contains a copy of the license of the package...
> Whereas you should feel free to include a license file in your source distribution, please do not arrange to
install yet another copy of the GNU COPYING or COPYING.LIB files ...
> Since files named LICENSE or LICENCE will be installed, do not use these names for standard license files.

> A few “standard” licenses are rather license templates which need additional information to be
> completed via ‘+ file LICENSE’.

I also recommend two additional changes:

* Include a LICENSE.note field that describes any parts of the package
that are available under other licenses.

* Add the authors of the included files to Authors using R

See https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#how-to-include for more details. I
haven't had any explicit feedback on these recommendations from CRAN
but they have worked for me in package submissions and align with my
(possibly flawed) understanding of CRAN policies and beliefs around
licensing.

Hadley

-- 
http://hadley.nz