I don't have a strong opinion about partitioning the repository, but I don't think partitioning based on whether the license is commonly used for R packages is terribly helpful. AGPL and AGPL + GPL3 are not common licensing schemes for R packages currently, but from the perspective of a useR, there is no relevant distinction between these two rare cases and the more common case of GPL3. So why should packages be put in separate repositories based on this non-distinction? A partition based on whether the package is free according to the FSF definition seems more plausible to me.
Ben Christophe Dutang wrote: > Hi all, > > I think for the common licences, we should also add BSD licence... for > example my pkg randtoolbox (which is currently with incompatible > licences) will probably be in a near future with the BSD licence. > > Anyway I like the idea of two different repositories for GPL like > licensed pkg and other packages. > > Christophe > > Le 24 avr. 09 à 18:20, Gabor Grothendieck a écrit : > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ben Goodrich >> <goodr...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> Kurt Hornik wrote: >>>> AGPL, unfortunately, allows supplements, and hence cannot fully be >>>> standardized. We've been thinking about extending the current >>>> scheme to >>>> indicate a base license plus supplements, but this is still work in >>>> progress. >>> >>> This would be helpful. I would just reemphasize that a package that >>> includes some AGPL code and some GPL3 code is standard as far as the FSF >>> is concerned, e.g. from section 13 of the AGPL: >>> >>> "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have >>> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed >>> under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined >>> work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will >>> continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work >>> with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU >>> General Public License." >>> >>> So, I think that CRAN should at least have a canonical spec that covers >>> *this* situation. Other situations may be more complicated to handle >>> elegantly. >> >> Another possibility is to simply standardize the set of licenses that >> CRAN >> supports. GPL licenses (GPl-2, GPL-2.1, GPL-3, LGPL), MIT and >> X11 already cover 98% of all packages on CRAN. If there truly is an >> advantage to the AGPL license perhaps a standard version could be offered >> in the set. Perhaps, for the 2% of packages that want a different >> license >> a second repository could be made available. >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > -- > Christophe Dutang > Ph. D. student at ISFA, Lyon, France > website: http://dutangc.free.fr > > > > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
