-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Published on CRAN #14
Comments
Thanks for letting me know! I was aware that you all were working on a fork, but didn't realize that the package not being up on CRAN was a bottleneck for you. The re-licensing is the only thing that jumps out to me as potentially problematic. In order to be compatible with the MIT license, you need to include the LICENSE for the respective components. (Note that the included license is ambiguous, as DESCRIPTION states MIT, while the LICENSE is for Artistic-2.0. Both are permissive and follow more-or-less the same rules for sublicensing, but I'll get them in sync under MIT so there's no ambiguity.) MIT is very straightforward with redistribution:
This would go for the It's probably late in the process now, but if it makes things easier on your end, I'd be happy to publish this to CRAN. |
Hey @dgkf, thanks for the heads up. I remember having a license file, but the CRAN team told me to remove it during the submission process, so I did in this commit. However, my license file was not appropriately citing Thanks for your offer to submit to CRAN, but you're right: we are in a good place with the (minor) changes we've made to |
Oh sorry @dgkf, are you saying if you publish to CRAN, I won't have to include |
Thanks for being receptive to the changes, @AARON-CLARK!
Ah, a great point - I didn't think about how this might be received by CRAN. I'm not sure how the structure will play with CRAN's acceptance policy. I'm searching around for tips, and found this "Practical Guide | Licensing R" resource that uses I'm not sure whether this will fly with the CRAN submission process, but I would follow the same structure as In - License: AGPL-3
+ License: AGPL-3 | file LICENSE And then include this
This is a new best practice to me, but one I like. The tutorial resource also recommends adding a comment in the authors field in DESCRIPTION. In this case, something like:
|
Hi @dgkf,
Just wanted to let you know that my team forked
{shinyDataFilter}
many years ago, made some edits, and just published on CRAN last week under the name{IDEAFilter}
. We published{IDEAFilter}
to CRAN because we are trying to publish another project on CRAN which depends on '{IDEAfilter}' and as we all know, CRAN packages can't depend on non-CRAN packages.If interested, please check out our repo: https://github.com/Biogen-Inc/IDEAFilter. We love your work on
{shinyDataFilter}
and have maintained your authorship and cited your work theREADME
, under the "Origins" section. If you'd like{shinyDataFilter}
to be cited some other way, please let me know.The only things we changed where:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: