Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich <goodr...@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, >>> 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. > > How about " > > License: AGPL except for 2 GPL files >
If that would make anyone's life easier without making anyone else's life harder, I would be happy to put that in the DESCRIPTION file. I have been doing file LICENSE because it parses on http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/FAiR/index.html and people can click to the LICENSE link to read the details if they are interested. But maybe that is not optimal. Dirk? Ben ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
