From goodrich at fas.harvard.edu  Fri Apr 24 17:44:36 2009
From: goodrich at fas.harvard.edu (Ben Goodrich)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:44:36 -0400
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <18929.51729.710038.745412@fangorn.hornik.net>
References: <18928.48327.599527.545472@ron.nulle.part>	<971536df0904231232vbb024c8p95456acaeae0ff6d@mail.gmail.com>	<18928.51543.939132.165160@ron.nulle.part>	<loom.20090423T204756-245@post.gmane.org>	<971536df0904231413y58e6ea53s9f23d02575c62a23@mail.gmail.com>	<49F0DDE5.6060209@fas.harvard.edu>
	<18929.51729.710038.745412@fangorn.hornik.net>
Message-ID: <49F1DE64.3040802@fas.harvard.edu>

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.

Thanks,
Ben



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Ben Goodrich