From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Fri Apr 24 18:20:05 2009
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:20:05 -0400
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <49F1DE64.3040802@fas.harvard.edu>
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> 
	<49F1DE64.3040802@fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <971536df0904240920m111b35dep5d458f81973921cd@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ben Goodrich <goodrich at fas.harvard.edu> 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
>> 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.

Another possibility is to simply standardize the set of licenses that CRAN
supports.  GPL licenses (GPl-2, GPL-2.1, GPL-3, LGPL), MIT and
X11 already cover 98% of all packages on CRAN.   If there truly is an
advantage to the AGPL license perhaps a standard version could be offered
in the set.  Perhaps, for the 2% of packages that want a different license
a second repository could be made available.



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Gabor Grothendieck