[Rd] License status of CRAN packages

Dirk Eddelbuettel edd at debian.org
Thu Apr 23 23:05:23 CEST 2009

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.


Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

More information about the R-devel mailing list