Message-ID: <19114.27629.237533.119608@fangorn.hornik.net>
Date: 2009-09-11T15:25:33Z
From: Kurt Hornik
Subject: Non-GPL packages for R
In-Reply-To: <4AAA4B77.8070601@uottawa.ca>
>>>>> Prof John C Nash writes:
> The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
> than I expected:
> 1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
> 2) r-forge could be left "buyer beware" using DESCRIPTION information
> 3) We may want a specific repository for restricted packages (RANC?)
> How to proceed? A short search on Rseek did not turn up a chain of
> command for CRAN.
I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion
came up that this will not happen for CRAN.
But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license
specs standardized, and writing code to compute on these. Time
permitting, R 2.10.0 will feature code that allows specifying license
filters which can be customized according to individuals' needs. But I
see no point in physically representing one particular license profile.
Btw, there are less non-free packages on CRAN than packages which claim
to be free but have non-free installation dependencies: some would argue
that the latter is impossible from a license perspective. I feel little
desire to start arguing about this, as being able to control package
installation by license filters will resolve matters anyway.
-k
> I'm prepared to help out with documentation etc. to move changes
> forward. They are not, in my opinion, likely to cause a lot of trouble
> for most users, and should simplify things over time.
> JN
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel