From edd at debian.org  Thu Apr 23 23:05:23 2009
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:05:23 -0500
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <971536df0904231335s25d1c134l58db3f7280c053e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18928.48327.599527.545472@ron.nulle.part>
	<971536df0904231232vbb024c8p95456acaeae0ff6d@mail.gmail.com>
	<18928.51543.939132.165160@ron.nulle.part>
	<971536df0904231335s25d1c134l58db3f7280c053e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18928.55315.939029.188945@ron.nulle.part>


On 23 April 2009 at 16:35, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
| Of the 31 packages listed:
|  [1] "BARD"          "BayesDA"       "CoCo"          "ConvCalendar"
|  [5] "FAiR"          "PTAk"          "RScaLAPACK"    "Rcsdp"
|  [9] "SDDA"          "SGP"           "alphahull"     "ash"
| [13] "asypow"        "caMassClass"   "gpclib"        "mapproj"
| [17] "matlab"        "mclust"        "mclust02"      "mlbench"
| [21] "optmatch"      "rankreg"       "realized"      "rngwell19937"
| [25] "rtiff"         "rwt"           "scagnostics"   "sgeostat"
| [29] "spatialkernel" "tlnise"        "xgobi"
| 
| the license fields are AGPL or GPL for 3 and specified in a separate
| file "file LICENSE" so about 30 of 1700 < 2% are question marks.

My point is that you currently need to manually parse 'file LICENSE'.  

And as I said, we did not claim that our set was exhaustive, current or
perfect. We just can't automate anything better given the current framework.
And I think we all should be able to do better in scripted approaches.  I
still think you're proving my point.  

| To me that is not inconsistent with all or nearly all being free software

I doubt that "all or nearly all" would equated to "exactly all" by a
court. You only need one bad apple to spoil the lot.

Dirk

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



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Dirk Eddelbuettel