>>>>> Kjetil Halvorsen writes: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ben Goodrich <goodr...@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, >>
> BayesDA has > License: GPL version 2 or any later version > what is unclear about that? Nothing, although the spec is not canonical as per R-exts, see http://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-devel-linux-ix86/BayesDA-00check.html: * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE Non-standard license specification: GPL version 2 or any later version Standardizable: TRUE Standardized license specification: GPL (>= 2) But as I wrote, the new code in 2.9.0 standardizes when it can ... -k > Kjetil >> >> > >> 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. >> >> Ben >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
