Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D.
Statistical Data Center
Intermountain Healthcare
greg.snow at imail.org
801.408.8111
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Eddelbuettel
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:05 PM
> To: Gabor Grothendieck
> Cc: Friedrich Leisch; Matthew Dowle; charles blundell; r-devel at r-
> project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
>
>
> On 23 April 2009 at 16:35, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> | Of the 31 packages listed:
> | [1] "BARD" "BayesDA" "CoCo" "ConvCalendar"
> | [5] "FAiR" "PTAk" "RScaLAPACK" "Rcsdp"
> | [9] "SDDA" "SGP" "alphahull" "ash"
> | [13] "asypow" "caMassClass" "gpclib" "mapproj"
> | [17] "matlab" "mclust" "mclust02" "mlbench"
> | [21] "optmatch" "rankreg" "realized" "rngwell19937"
> | [25] "rtiff" "rwt" "scagnostics" "sgeostat"
> | [29] "spatialkernel" "tlnise" "xgobi"
> |
> | the license fields are AGPL or GPL for 3 and specified in a separate
> | file "file LICENSE" so about 30 of 1700 < 2% are question marks.
>
> My point is that you currently need to manually parse 'file LICENSE'.
>
> And as I said, we did not claim that our set was exhaustive, current or
> perfect. We just can't automate anything better given the current
> framework.
> And I think we all should be able to do better in scripted approaches.
> I
> still think you're proving my point.
>
> | To me that is not inconsistent with all or nearly all being free
> software
>
> I doubt that "all or nearly all" would equated to "exactly all" by a
> court. You only need one bad apple to spoil the lot.
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel