[R-pkg-devel] What to do when a package is archived from CRAN

[Iñaki Ucar]

About licensing,

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 17:30, SHIMA Tatsuya <ts1s1andn using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ivan, thanks for taking the time to look at all the details of this.
>
>  > You licensed the package as MIT. Are your dependencies compatible
> with MIT? All direct dependencies of your Rust code seem to be licensed
> under either MIT or Apache-2.0, which seems to be compatible.
>
> I am not a legal expert, but as you have seen all of prqlr's dependent crates are compatible with the MIT license, and I interpret this to mean that there is no problem distributing anything containing them under the MIT license.

No, that's not what "compatibility" means. You cannot just take n
pieces of software, bundle them, and release them under a license of
your choice (unless their licenses enable you to do so via some
re-licensing clause, like the Artistic-2.0 license does).

That's not the case here. By licensing your package as MIT, you are
violating the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, because I assume that
you are not modifying those dependencies at all. So your work should
be both MIT and Apache-2.0 (and others, should they exist, and
provided they are compatible).

Best,
-- 
Iñaki Úcar