Ben Goodrich writes:
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'
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich goodr...@fas.harvard.eduwrote:
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:
Kjetil Halvorsen writes:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich goodr...@fas.harvard.eduwrote:
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:
On 24 April 2009 at 10:18, Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich goodr...@fas.harvard.eduwrote:
|
| Dirk Eddelbuettel edd at debian.org writes:
| As a non-exhautive list with possible misclassifications, cran2deb
| currently
| has these packasges as 'maybe
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
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
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
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,
(Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk)
On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| Aside from R there are the add-on packages.
|
| A frequency table showing the licenses of the CRAN packages indicates
| that the all or almost all packages have some
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote:
(Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk)
On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| Aside from R there are the add-on packages.
|
| A frequency table showing the licenses of
On 23 April 2009 at 15:32, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote:
|
| (Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread --Dirk)
|
| On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| | Aside from R there are
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 23 April 2009 at 15:32, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel
e...@debian.org wrote:
|
| (Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread
--Dirk)
|
| On 23 April 2009 at
Of the 31 packages listed:
[1] BARD BayesDA CoCo ConvCalendar
[5] FAiR PTAk RScaLAPACKRcsdp
[9] SDDA SGP alphahull ash
[13] asypowcaMassClass gpclibmapproj
[17] matlabmclustmclust02
In some other software systems there are separate repositories for
free and non-free add-ons. That way its clear what you are downloading
yet there are good outlets for both types of software. There has been some
discussion of future features that CRAN might have that might make
this even easier
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
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,
On 23 April 2009 at 16:35, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| Of the 31 packages listed:
| [1] BARD BayesDA CoCo ConvCalendar
| [5] FAiR PTAk RScaLAPACKRcsdp
| [9] SDDA SGP alphahull ash
| [13] asypowcaMassClass gpclib
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:
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:
To: Gabor Grothendieck
Cc: Friedrich Leisch; Matthew Dowle; charles blundell; r-de...@r-
project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
On 23 April 2009 at 16:35, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| Of the 31 packages listed:
| [1] BARD BayesDA CoCo
20 matches
Mail list logo
