On 23 April 2009 at 15:35, Marc Schwartz wrote: | There is a list of acceptable entries that are defined as part of the | specs in R-exts (see page 4). Perhaps this needs to be "tightened" a | bit, at least in so far as packages passing R CMD check for the | purpose of inclusion on CRAN. That would include perhaps altering the | ability to use the 'file LICENSE' option, which at present leaves the | door wide open for non-standard approaches. It may also have to check | for DEPENDS and whether they too are on CRAN and passed the | appropriate license checks.
Exactly. | Packages that fail this check should not be included on CRAN and the | package author would then be obligated to find other distribution | resources or contact the CRAN maintainers to advocate that their | licensing schema should be acceptable. | | Then the end user can at least have some comfort in knowing that | anything they get from CRAN comes under a compatible license for | general use without restriction. They would have to intentionally use | other sources for packages that fail the CRAN requirements. Exactly. I think we may have to work on tightening the standards of CRAN re-distribution. | If other distribution venues, such as Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora elect to cran2deb does not have inclusion to Debian in mind. What Charles and I are thinking about is something aking to the Windows situation: suitable i386 and amd64 binaries (for Debian Linux) provided from CRAN for as many packages as possible. Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel