search

TommyJones / tidylda

Implements an algorithim for Latent Dirichlet Allocation using style conventions from the [tidyverse](https://style.tidyverse.org/) and [tidymodels](https://tidymodels.github.io/model-implementation-principles/index.html).
Other
41 stars 3 forks source link

JOSS review: Duplicated license files #72

Closed maximelenormand closed 3 weeks ago

maximelenormand commented 3 weeks ago

Hi Tommy,

My name is Maxime Lenormand. I will review your package over the next few weeks.

You have two license files, I recommend keeping only the MIT License file.

#6800

TommyJones commented 3 weeks ago

Thank you! Fixed with https://github.com/TommyJones/tidylda/commit/881f92ebca38f08d7671df055eca1caa978d09e4

TommyJones commented 3 weeks ago

Actually, I'm reopening this.

CRAN has a very esoteric take on license files. Removing the LICENSE file with just my name and date and/or renaming LICENSE.md (which has MIT license language) means that the package no longer passes checks to be hosted on CRAN.

I understand that it's confusing to have both LICENSE and LICENSE.md files. So, I'm leaving this open until I can satisfy both requirements of having one file and passing CMD check for CRAN.

TommyJones commented 3 weeks ago

Ok. What works is removing the MIT license file and leaving the file with just a copright statement. The MIT license is a standard anyway, so I don't think removing it from the repo substantially changes understandability of the copyright.

The commit that passes CMD check and has only one license file is https://github.com/TommyJones/tidylda/commit/846adcced612dfcaa26098c077aad9ba53ddc5ff

@maximelenormand is this solution satisfactory?

maximelenormand commented 3 weeks ago

The problem now is that the license can only be identified in the DESCRIPTION file.

This is strange that you cannot pass the CRAN checks with one file. I did not encounter this problem with my packages (example https://github.com/EpiVec/TDLM/) but it is maybe due to the MIT license.

If you cannot solve the problem, you can keep the two license files. It is better to clearly identify one well-known license, even if having two files may be confusing.

TommyJones commented 3 weeks ago

Understood. I'll revert to what I had originally. I'll close the issue when that's done.

It looks like other folks have similar issues.

As I'd originally set it up, I followed Hadely's guidance here, which was also suggested in the Stack Overflow post, above.

This is less than ideal but it seems to be the conventional wisdom.

TommyJones commented 3 weeks ago

39b751a1d34deab1fad47c1aaf33094133d34a8a