From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 23:13:22 2009
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:13:22 -0400
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <loom.20090423T204756-245@post.gmane.org>
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>
Message-ID: <971536df0904231413y58e6ea53s9f23d02575c62a23@mail.gmail.com>

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,
>> ? ? ?alphahull,ash,asypow,caMassClass,gpclib,mapproj,matlab,mclust,mclust02,
>> ? ? ?mlbench,optmatch,rankreg,realized,rngwell19937,rtiff,rwt,scagnostics,
>> ? ? ?sgeostat,spatialkernel,tlnise,xgobi
>
> Small point: FAiR is free. The file LICENSE thing just clarifies that most of
> the code is AGPL but a couple files can't be included under the AGPL and are
> plain GPL. As far as I can see, R does not give me the option of saying so in a
> "standard" way, e.g. putting License: AGPL (>= 3) in the DESCRIPTION file would
> only be 95% accurate and putting License: AGPL (>= 3) | GPL (>= 3) is misleading.

How about "

License: AGPL except for 2 GPL files



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Gabor Grothendieck