On 23 April 2009 at 16:35, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: | Of the 31 packages listed: | [1] "BARD" "BayesDA" "CoCo" "ConvCalendar" | [5] "FAiR" "PTAk" "RScaLAPACK" "Rcsdp" | [9] "SDDA" "SGP" "alphahull" "ash" | [13] "asypow" "caMassClass" "gpclib" "mapproj" | [17] "matlab" "mclust" "mclust02" "mlbench" | [21] "optmatch" "rankreg" "realized" "rngwell19937" | [25] "rtiff" "rwt" "scagnostics" "sgeostat" | [29] "spatialkernel" "tlnise" "xgobi" | | the license fields are AGPL or GPL for 3 and specified in a separate | file "file LICENSE" so about 30 of 1700 < 2% are question marks.
My point is that you currently need to manually parse 'file LICENSE'. And as I said, we did not claim that our set was exhaustive, current or perfect. We just can't automate anything better given the current framework. And I think we all should be able to do better in scripted approaches. I still think you're proving my point. | To me that is not inconsistent with all or nearly all being free software I doubt that "all or nearly all" would equated to "exactly all" by a court. You only need one bad apple to spoil the lot. 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
