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
19 matches
Mail list logo
