>>>>> Prof John C Nash writes: > The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more consensus > than I expected: > 1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages > 2) r-forge could be left "buyer beware" using DESCRIPTION information > 3) We may want a specific repository for restricted packages (RANC?)
> How to proceed? A short search on Rseek did not turn up a chain of > command for CRAN. I thought I had already explained the last time the GPL-only suggestion came up that this will not happen for CRAN. But again: we have invested considerable time into getting the license specs standardized, and writing code to compute on these. Time permitting, R 2.10.0 will feature code that allows specifying license filters which can be customized according to individuals' needs. But I see no point in physically representing one particular license profile. Btw, there are less non-free packages on CRAN than packages which claim to be free but have non-free installation dependencies: some would argue that the latter is impossible from a license perspective. I feel little desire to start arguing about this, as being able to control package installation by license filters will resolve matters anyway. -k > I'm prepared to help out with documentation etc. to move changes > forward. They are not, in my opinion, likely to cause a lot of trouble > for most users, and should simplify things over time. > JN > ______________________________________________ > 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