+1
Commit to freedom if you want the free services of CRAN, etc ...
On 09/11/2009 12:13 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 10 September 2009 at 14:26, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| The SystemRequirements: field of the DESCRIPTION file normally
| lists external dependencies whether free or non-free
The documentation, help("!") e.g.,
contains
> Arguments:
> x, y: logical vectors, or objects which can be coerced to such or
> for which methods have been written.
and then later
> Numeric and complex vectors will be coerced to logical values,
> with zero being false and all
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
2) r-forge could be left "buyer beware" using DESCRIPTION information
3) We may want a specific repository for restricted packages (RANC?)
How t
Prof. John C Nash wrote:
> The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
> than I expected:
> 1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
GPL-_compatible_ would be the word. However, this is not what has been
done in the past. There are packages with "n
Hi!
When I run "R CMD check" on the current development version of my R
package "frontier" [1], there is no difference between the output of
the test scripts in the /tests/ folder and the saved output files
(.Rout.save). However, if I change an R file in the /R/ folder, some
calls to the Fortran c
Hi,
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
than I expected:
Umm, I had thought that it was well established that responders need
not represent the population being surveyed. I doubt that there is
consensus at th
> spencerg writes:
> I will offer my opinion as a user and contributer to R packages
> via R-Forge and CRAN:
>1. How difficult would it be to split CRAN into two parts,
> depending on whether the package carried an acceptable license allowing
> free distribution? The
On 9/11/2009 10:48 AM, Arne Henningsen wrote:
Hi!
When I run "R CMD check" on the current development version of my R
package "frontier" [1], there is no difference between the output of
the test scripts in the /tests/ folder and the saved output files
(.Rout.save). However, if I change an R fil
> Prof John C Nash writes:
> The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus
> than I expected:
> 1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
> 2) r-forge could be left "buyer beware" using DESCRIPTION information
> 3) We may want a specific reposito
On 11 September 2009 at 16:37, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
| who have responded on the list do not necessarily speak for CRAN. In the
| final analysis, the maintainers must decide what is maintainable.
Fully agreed. As 'maintainers' of cran2deb, Charles and I decided to 'shoot
first, ask questions late
One complication is that its possible that a package can use a non-free
component but can also be used without it. The fame package could
be used with fame or without fame for a long time but more recently the
non-fame portion was factored out into the tis package. The VhayuR
package is similar i
At 08:07 11/09/2009, Romain Francois wrote:
+1
Commit to freedom if you want the free services of CRAN, etc ...
It seems to me very reasonable for people to be asked to distribute
their software via some other route if they cannot join in the spirit
of the enterprise. So add my vote in with
On 11 September 2009 at 12:19, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| One complication is that its possible that a package can use a non-free
| component but can also be used without it. The fame package could
| be used with fame or without fame for a long time but more recently the
| non-fame portion was f
On 11 September 2009 at 17:25, Kurt Hornik wrote:
| I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion
| came up that this will not happen for CRAN.
|
| But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license
| specs standardized, and writing code to compute on
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 11 September 2009 at 17:25, Kurt Hornik wrote:
| I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion
| came up that this will not happen for CRAN.
|
| But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license
| specs standardized, and
License filters will work for me. My offer stands to help on
documentation,or to act as a "stooge" to test tools in this area. Thanks
to those who responded. And for myself, "GPL compatible" was my intended
expression.
JN
__
R-devel@r-project.org ma
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 9/11/2009 10:48 AM, Arne Henningsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> When I run "R CMD check" on the current development version of my R
>> package "frontier" [1], there is no difference between the output of
>> the test scripts in the /tests/ fold
John,
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:07 , Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more
consensus than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
I would definitely vote against that - I think this is not what the
most people
Comrades,
When talk turns to the purity of the revolution, and purge of packages then
the guillotine can't be far behind. We all remember Lenin berating the
"renegade Kautsky" for his "pragmatism," and we know where that led...
So let me put in a good word for pragmatism, and incidentally for s
19 matches
Mail list logo
