On 24.09.2012 19:30, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
R-devel now gives a warning for a non-standard license (this may have
happened for a while).
Yes, for several years now.
In Rgraphviz we include the Graphviz source code, which is under
Eclipse. But the rest of the R package is under Artisti
R-devel now gives a warning for a non-standard license (this may have
happened for a while).
In Rgraphviz we include the Graphviz source code, which is under
Eclipse. But the rest of the R package is under Artistic-2.0 or at
least contains code from past contributors which were licensed under
Art
On 11-08-16 4:33 PM, Uwe Schmitt wrote:
Am 16.08.2011 22:23, schrieb Kevin Wright:
With open source software, you can do anything you want on your own
computer. The difficult questions arise when you want to
re-distribute software.
You have provided very little context for your question, so th
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 22:33 +0200, Uwe Schmitt wrote:
> The question is, if I am allowed to distribute the R.dll and the
> related libraries together with my software, or
> if it is better to ask the user to install these himself.
By principle it is better *not* to bundle libraries into the softw
Am 16.08.2011 22:23, schrieb Kevin Wright:
> With open source software, you can do anything you want on your own
> computer. The difficult questions arise when you want to
> re-distribute software.
>
> You have provided very little context for your question, so the
> standard answer on this ema
With open source software, you can do anything you want on your own
computer. The difficult questions arise when you want to re-distribute
software.
You have provided very little context for your question, so the standard
answer on this email list is "Talk to your lawyer".
Kevin
On Tue, Aug 16
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for my question,
so please redirect me if this is the wrong place for the
following question:
Am I allowed to include R.dll and Rblas.dll in other software ?
In my case I'm want to run some R commands from a Python script
and save the results.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 18:04 -0800, Scott Gonyea wrote:
> Heh. That's annoying. The R Mailing List should really set the
> "reply-to" header.
No it shouldn't, if you mean set the list as the reply-to address that
i. If I want to reply to a message you sent, I Reply to you. If I want
that reply to
Heh. That's annoying. The R Mailing List should really set the "reply-to"
header.
I wrote two e-mail, so here they are:
There's a 'source' command in R, so I should not use that word. If you're not
copying out chunks of code and inserting them, you own the code itself. No one
can somehow
On 22/12/2010 5:35 PM, David Scott wrote:
I am writing a package for a company for its internal use only.
What is an appropriate license statement for the DESCRIPTION file?
I think "Internal use only, not for distribution" is reasonable. The
copyright statement is separate from the licens
I am writing a package for a company for its internal use only.
What is an appropriate license statement for the DESCRIPTION file?
I would like a statement which reflects the private and proprietary
nature of the package, giving copyright to the writer and the company. I
also don't want to vi
> Hmm, well... I have always understood it so that: (a) yes, it's GPL-2 (what
> else could it be) and (b) it means that the restrictions of GPL apply insofar
> as they make sense, e.g., you can pick it apart and reuse it in other GPL-2
> or compatible products, but not take it proprietary. Upon
On Sep 29, 2010, at 17:05 , Hadley Wickham wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Under what license are the R manuals (R language definition etc)
> released? They are not mentioned explicitly in license() and have no
> license information in the individual documents. Does this mean that
> they are released und
Hi all,
Under what license are the R manuals (R language definition etc)
released? They are not mentioned explicitly in license() and have no
license information in the individual documents. Does this mean that
they are released under GPL-2? If so, what does that mean, given that
they aren't so
nterface and wanting to link to that interface and whether the intention or
the actuality of the license allow that.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Quarendon
Sent: 03 August 2010 13:23
To: r-devel@r
Possibly more of a legal question than a technical development question, but
here goes.
In the doc\COPYRIGHTS file it is made clear that the intention is that you can
write R packages and distribute them under licenses not compatible with GPL, by
making the relevant header files available und
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Pin Tian Ng wrote:
> I developed some code that called subroutines from the Port3 Library
> (http://www-out.bell-labs.com/project/PORT/). I¹m thinking about making it
> available as an R package. But I¹m not sure if their NON-EXCLUSIVE SOURCE
> CODE LICENSE AG
I developed some code that called subroutines from the Port3 Library
(http://www-out.bell-labs.com/project/PORT/). I¹m thinking about making it
available as an R package. But I¹m not sure if their NON-EXCLUSIVE SOURCE
CODE LICENSE AGREEMENT (
http://www-out.bell-labs.com/topic/swdist/licens
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
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
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
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ben Goodrich 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
>> pro
On 24 April 2009 at 10:18, Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich wrote:
|
| > Dirk Eddelbuettel debian.org> writes:
| > > As a non-exhautive list with possible misclassifications, cran2deb
| > currently
| > > has these packasges as 'maybe not free' and does not
> Kjetil Halvorsen writes:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich wrote:
>> Dirk Eddelbuettel 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 Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel 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,PTA
> Ben Goodrich writes:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich
>> wrote:
>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel debian.org> writes:
As a non-exhautive list with possible misclassifications, cran2deb
currently
has these packasges as 'maybe not free' and do
y, April 23, 2009 3:05 PM
> 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 pack
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich
> wrote:
>> Dirk Eddelbuettel 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,Baye
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel 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,RSca
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"
Dirk Eddelbuettel 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,
> alphahull,ash,asypow,caMassCl
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. Tha
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
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"
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
wrote:
| >
| > (Subject: renamed as thread hijacked from the ParallelR thread
--Dirk)
| >
| > On 23 April 2009 at 14:44, Gabor
On 23 April 2009 at 15:32, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel 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 pa
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel 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 the CRAN
(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 so
Hi,
Try to contact the other authors... I spent 5 min on google and found
this http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Verwiss/koenig/
Regards
Christophe
Le 1 avr. 09 à 10:58, Pierre-Yves a écrit :
Dear list,
Sorry for the noise but I have a question regarding the license used
in
RUnit [1], I
Dear list,
Sorry for the noise but I have a question regarding the license used in
RUnit [1], I contacted the maintainer( burgerm -at- users -dot-
sourceforge -dot- net ) on March 20th but I have received no answer.
Could anyone help to solve this question ?
Basically, my problem is that the web
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Martin Maechler wrote:
"GaGr" == Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:51:50 -0400 writes:
GaGr> Is this a true problem?
No;
as Oholoh mentions there are only two files which mention the
artistic licence, namely src/main/apse.[ch]
Apart fr
> "GaGr" == Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:51:50 -0400 writes:
GaGr> Is this a true problem?
No;
as Oholoh mentions there are only two files which mention the
artistic licence, namely src/main/apse.[ch]
and these two contain
>> Copyright (C) by
Is this a true problem?
Artistic License may conflict with GPL
The source code for R contains references to both the GNU General
Public License 2.0 (GPL) and to the Artistic License. These two
licenses include some contradictory restrictions.
The Ohloh source code parser is exhaustive, and can r
43 matches
Mail list logo
