Need to declare a licence for use/distribution of the code about pangaear HOT 6 CLOSED

Yep, I think MIT for license

huh, i wasn't aware that we should add LICENSE to .Rbuildignore - I don't think check complains about that does it?

from pangaear.

@sckott I thought it did if it was in the top level of the sources as R expects arbitrary files to be in inst/.

from pangaear.

ah, sounds good

from pangaear.

@gavinsimpson hmm, check throws an error about path to license https://travis-ci.org/ropensci/pangaear/builds/34618941#L685 - how to avoid this when LICENSE file is in inst/ - this error doesn't happen I don't think when the file is in root dir.

from pangaear.

Ahh, my bad @sckott; seems i either misremembered this or things have changed somewhat since I last had to do this. Writing R Extensions states that LICENCE should be in the top level directory of the sorces, not inst/LICENCE as we discussed. However, it also talks about having LICENCE in both the top level "source" and "installation" directories. The only way to achieve the latter is via inst/LICENCE. So I wonder if we shouldn't put the full MIT licence in pangaear/LICENCE and the short two-line version in inst/LICENCE? That way people on Github see clearly what the licence is without needing to know the R ships with generic copies.

I'll have to look at the other commits to see if we need to undo or modify things to make this change.

from pangaear.

Okay, thanks @gavinsimpson

from pangaear.