[R-pkg-devel] How to structure LICENSE for multiple licenses?

[P Roebuck]

You are the *author* of your code so it wouldn't be necessary for either
type.
Since you're not licensing someone else's code, the  license restrictions
are
not binding on you -- simply listing them for a FOSS license is likely
enough.

That being said, it could complicate the terms for a licensee. It should be
unnecessary to include the GPL license text since the license itself does
not
carry restrictions.

INAL but to ensure your license is preserved, *I* would add a copy of the
MIT license (which has restrictions) but not the LGPL (which does not) to
your source package as follows:

<pkg>

+- R/
+- data/
+- inst/
   +- tests/
   +- LICENSE.MIT
+- man/
+- src/
+- DESCRIPTION
+- NAMESPACE


and have the DESCRIPTION file simply read:

Package: <pkg>
License: LGPL-2.1 | MIT
...



On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:58 PM Steven Scott <steve.the.bayesian using gmail.com>
wrote:

> The current version of 'bsts' is released under the LGPL.  I want to add
> the MIT license as an alternative.
>
> Right now the DESCRIPTION file contains the line
>                License: LGPL-2.1 | file LICENSE
> and the file LICENSE contains a copy of the LGPL.
>
> To add the MIT license I believe I need to modify it to be
>          License: LGPL-2.1 | MIT + file LICENSE | file LICENSE
>
> The syntax MIT + file LICENSE is because the MIT license is a template, and
> I need to fill in the template parameters in the LICENSE file.
>
> What's the right way to structure the LICENSE file to contain two
> licenses?  Should I have two files (MIT.LICENSE, LGPL.LICENSE)?  Can I just
> append the MIT license to the bottom of the LICENSE file?
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]