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
