From edd at debian.org  Fri Apr 24 16:48:05 2009
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:48:05 -0500
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <556e90a80904240718m5daf6b92m717a06c5a46f8b52@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<556e90a80904240718m5daf6b92m717a06c5a46f8b52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18929.53541.80256.955192@ron.nulle.part>


On 24 April 2009 at 10:18, Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich <goodrich at fas.harvard.edu>wrote:
| 
| > Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd <at> 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,
| >
| 
|  BayesDA has
|    License:       GPL version 2 or any later version
| 
| what is unclear about that?

Pick any one of

  a)  the license may have been different when that list above was established
 
  b)  the wording, which by the way is not in the format mandated by the R
      Extentions manual, does not match any of the more than dozen free forms
      of saying GPL that we already accept automatically

  c)  the package is fine but it Depends: on another package flagged non-free
      and is hence non-free for us

  d)  lack of volunteer time to manually check and adjust among 1700 packages
      with a steady inflow of new packages

  e)  all of the above

  f)  none of the above.

Dirk

-- 
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Dirk Eddelbuettel