From dutangc at gmail.com  Fri Apr 24 22:32:48 2009
From: dutangc at gmail.com (Christophe Dutang)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:32:48 +0200
Subject: [Rd] License status of CRAN packages
In-Reply-To: <971536df0904240920m111b35dep5d458f81973921cd@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>
	<971536df0904231413y58e6ea53s9f23d02575c62a23@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F0DDE5.6060209@fas.harvard.edu>
	<18929.51729.710038.745412@fangorn.hornik.net>
	<49F1DE64.3040802@fas.harvard.edu>
	<971536df0904240920m111b35dep5d458f81973921cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <835D77AE-55E8-4036-94E3-3B5AFCD8EC50@gmail.com>

Hi all,

I think for the common licences, we should also add BSD licence... for  
example my pkg randtoolbox (which is currently with incompatible  
licences) will probably be in a near future with the BSD licence.

Anyway I like the idea of two different repositories for GPL like  
licensed pkg and other packages.

Christophe

Le 24 avr. 09 ? 18:20, Gabor Grothendieck a ?crit :

> 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.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

--
Christophe Dutang
Ph. D. student at ISFA, Lyon, France
website: http://dutangc.free.fr



[Rd] License status of CRAN packages
Christophe Dutang