From bates@stat.wisc.edu  Mon Feb  2 19:37:32 1998
From: bates@stat.wisc.edu (Douglas Bates)
Date: 02 Feb 1998 13:37:32 -0600
Subject: Licenses on Submissions to CRAN
In-Reply-To: Friedrich Leisch's message of Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:26:07 +0100
References: <199801301322.OAA06285@galadriel.ci.tuwien.ac.at> 	<Pine.SUN.3.95.980130113536.17212B-100000@chekov> <199802021726.SAA12466@galadriel.ci.tuwien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <6ru3ahx0g3.fsf_-_@verdi.stat.wisc.edu>

Friedrich Leisch <Friedrich.Leisch@ci.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> So is it ok if we change the above to something like
> 
> **********************************************************
> 
> Package: e1071
> Version: 0.7-3
> Author: Compiled by Fritz Leisch <Friedrich.Leisch@ci.tuwien.ac.at>.
> Description: Miscellaneous functions used at the Department of
> Statistics at TU Wien (E1071). 
> License: GPL
> 
> **********************************************************

I hate to be picky but I think it would be better to have it a bit
more complete as in 

License: GPL version 2 or later

> or is it better if we use the keyword `Copying'?

I think License is better than Copying.

> I also want to complile a list of known Licenses:
> 
> 	GPL
> 	BSD
> 	Artistic
> 
> These (and similar ones) are what Debian considers `free'.


> How should we treat the rest? Providing some more keywords or have
> people explain it in detail in the DESCRIPTION file?

We might use a general phrase followed by a reference to the
DESCRIPTION file.  For example

License: Free for non-commercial use.  See the file DESCRIPTION for details.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


Licenses on Submissions to CRAN
Douglas Bates