On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM, rudjer rkoen...@uiuc.edu wrote:
Comrades,
When talk turns to the purity of the revolution, and purge of packages then
the guillotine can't be far behind. We all remember Lenin berating the
renegade Kautsky for his pragmatism, and we know where that led...
+1
Commit to freedom if you want the free services of CRAN, etc ...
On 09/11/2009 12:13 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 10 September 2009 at 14:26, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| The SystemRequirements: field of the DESCRIPTION file normally
| lists external dependencies whether free or
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
2) r-forge could be left buyer beware using DESCRIPTION information
3) We may want a specific repository for restricted packages (RANC?)
How to
Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
GPL-_compatible_ would be the word. However, this is not what has been
done in the past. There are packages with
Hi,
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
Umm, I had thought that it was well established that responders need
not represent the population being surveyed. I doubt that there is
consensus at
spencerg writes:
I will offer my opinion as a user and contributer to R packages
via R-Forge and CRAN:
1. How difficult would it be to split CRAN into two parts,
depending on whether the package carried an acceptable license allowing
free distribution? The second
Prof John C Nash writes:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
2) r-forge could be left buyer beware using DESCRIPTION information
3) We may want a specific repository for
On 11 September 2009 at 16:37, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
| who have responded on the list do not necessarily speak for CRAN. In the
| final analysis, the maintainers must decide what is maintainable.
Fully agreed. As 'maintainers' of cran2deb, Charles and I decided to 'shoot
first, ask questions
One complication is that its possible that a package can use a non-free
component but can also be used without it. The fame package could
be used with fame or without fame for a long time but more recently the
non-fame portion was factored out into the tis package. The VhayuR
package is similar
At 08:07 11/09/2009, Romain Francois wrote:
+1
Commit to freedom if you want the free services of CRAN, etc ...
It seems to me very reasonable for people to be asked to distribute
their software via some other route if they cannot join in the spirit
of the enterprise. So add my vote in
On 11 September 2009 at 12:19, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| One complication is that its possible that a package can use a non-free
| component but can also be used without it. The fame package could
| be used with fame or without fame for a long time but more recently the
| non-fame portion was
On 11 September 2009 at 17:25, Kurt Hornik wrote:
| I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion
| came up that this will not happen for CRAN.
|
| But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license
| specs standardized, and writing code to compute
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 11 September 2009 at 17:25, Kurt Hornik wrote:
| I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion
| came up that this will not happen for CRAN.
|
| But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license
| specs standardized,
License filters will work for me. My offer stands to help on
documentation,or to act as a stooge to test tools in this area. Thanks
to those who responded. And for myself, GPL compatible was my intended
expression.
JN
__
R-devel@r-project.org
John,
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:07 , Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more
consensus than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
I would definitely vote against that - I think this is not what the
most
Comrades,
When talk turns to the purity of the revolution, and purge of packages then
the guillotine can't be far behind. We all remember Lenin berating the
renegade Kautsky for his pragmatism, and we know where that led...
So let me put in a good word for pragmatism, and incidentally for
The SystemRequirements: field of the DESCRIPTION file normally
lists external dependencies whether free or non-free.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Prof. John C Nash nas...@uottawa.ca wrote:
Subject: Non-GPL packages for R
Packages that are not licensed in a way that permits re-distribution
On 10 September 2009 at 14:26, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| The SystemRequirements: field of the DESCRIPTION file normally
| lists external dependencies whether free or non-free.
Moreover, the (aptly named) field 'License:' in DESCRIPTION is now much more
parseable and contains pertinent
I will offer my opinion as a user and contributer to R packages
via R-Forge and CRAN:
1. How difficult would it be to split CRAN into two parts,
depending on whether the package carried an acceptable license allowing
free distribution? The second might carry a name like
With header this time
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:08 -0700, Nicholas Lewin-Koh
ni...@hailmail.net wrote:
Hi,
I would also be in favor of a stronger stance on licenses. In
industry, where we can really get in big trouble for violating a
license,
we often maintain internal repositories, or need to
On 10/09/2009 6:57 PM, spencerg wrote:
I will offer my opinion as a user and contributer to R packages
via R-Forge and CRAN:
1. How difficult would it be to split CRAN into two parts,
depending on whether the package carried an acceptable license allowing
free
21 matches
Mail list logo
