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

[Ben Bolker]

  Thanks very much.  In the end I gave up and removed the offending
LaTeX files, as the goal of this was to get the package to build on
r-hub's Fedora platform, and it seems more promising to work with the
r-hub folks to get a sufficiently complete LaTeX installation
available there (as the required files seem to be present on every
_other_ Linux platform I've tried). (For future readers/references,
the  huxtable package is driving these requirements.)

  cheers
   Ben Bolker

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:49 PM Hadley Wickham <h.wickham using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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