-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Copyright issues #8
Comments
@AARON-CLARK - Has there been any progress on this? It's still in violation of my license. I love the fact that you're using the code, but the fact that it's published under a different license is problematic for me. This is not just a matter of preference - leaving it available under this license creates confusion of who is the original author and what license applies. The license that you released it under is less open and limits the use cases where someone may feel comfortable using the software, impacting the adoption of my work. By allowing you to keep it published under this license I'm opening up myself to license disputes for the code that you took. If a third party uses my code, with the original license, Biogen could conceivably force this third party into an unfortunate position of being forced to share their code according to your viral license when the original license would have been more flexible for their use case. The longer you keep it available under this license, the murkier this situation gets. I wanted institutions to be able to use this code without opening themselves up to such requests, but your change of the license wraps this in a whole lot of ambiguity. Can we set a deadline around fixing this mistake? I propose that we aim for the end of November to have a version with an appropriate license for redistributing my code. |
Hi @dgkf, My mistake. Since publishing on CRAN,
So copy/pasting the MIT license a bunch of times into the For completeness & consistency, how did you go about citing the author of Thanks! I am no licensing expert so I appreciate the learning experience. |
Thanks for acting fast, @AARON-CLARK - much appreciated 🎉 The merge request looks great. I think you're in good shape. In short, I think you'd be good with those new changes, but just to address the questions you posed as well (and keep in mind that I'm learning as I go with all these license details too):
This isn't copying the full license, just the author's copyright file. This is why software licensed as MIT is always
I think that including authors of your redistributed code is a good practice, but is not required by the license itself. When I was redistributing
|
@dgkf, merged! |
Awesome, thanks for getting that all sorted out. If you don't have a new release planned in the near future, could I also ask that you publish the version with the appropriate license to CRAN? |
@dgkf, I have a lot of OOO coming up, so I'll consult with my dev team to see when we could do this. |
@dgkf, a long time overdue, but we're finally seeking to push a new release of
So it sounds like Biogen's initial choice of AGPL-3.0 is indeed problematic given |
Initially brought to my attention here.
According to the MIT license, we need to appropriately cite any works that that leverage an MIT license in a license.md file, like
sortableJS
andshinyDataFilter
. Use thisshinyDataFilter
PR as a template.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: