[Rd] License status of CRAN packages

[Kurt Hornik]

>>>>> Kjetil Halvorsen writes:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich <goodrich at fas.harvard.edu>wrote:
>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd <at> debian.org> writes:
>> > As a non-exhautive list with possible misclassifications, cran2deb
>> currently
>> > has these packasges as 'maybe not free' and does not build them:
>> >
>> >      BARD,BayesDA,CoCo,ConvCalendar,FAiR,PTAk,RScaLAPACK,Rcsdp,SDDA,SGP,
>> 

>  BayesDA has
>    License:       GPL version 2 or any later version

> what is unclear about that?

Nothing, although the spec is not canonical as per R-exts, see
http://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-ix86/BayesDA-00check.html:

* checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE
Non-standard license specification:
GPL version 2 or any later version
Standardizable: TRUE
Standardized license specification:
GPL (>= 2)

But as I wrote, the new code in 2.9.0 standardizes when it can ...

-k



> Kjetil


>> 
>> >
>> alphahull,ash,asypow,caMassClass,gpclib,mapproj,matlab,mclust,mclust02,
>> >
>> mlbench,optmatch,rankreg,realized,rngwell19937,rtiff,rwt,scagnostics,
>> >      sgeostat,spatialkernel,tlnise,xgobi
>> 
>> Small point: FAiR is free. The file LICENSE thing just clarifies that most
>> of
>> the code is AGPL but a couple files can't be included under the AGPL and
>> are
>> plain GPL. As far as I can see, R does not give me the option of saying so
>> in a
>> "standard" way, e.g. putting License: AGPL (>= 3) in the DESCRIPTION file
>> would
>> only be 95% accurate and putting License: AGPL (>= 3) | GPL (>= 3) is
>> misleading.
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>> 

> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel