John,
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:07 , Prof. John C Nash wrote:
The responses to my posting yesterday seem to indicate more
consensus than I expected:
1) CRAN should be restricted to GPL-equivalent licensed packages
I would definitely vote against that - I think this is not what the
most people here agreed with (and the subject [non-GPL] and your
wording [non-redistributable code] are two entirely different things).
GPL is more restrictive than most open source licenses so with the
above you'd throw out a lot of "real" open source packages (namely
those with more permissive open source licenses). The point was open
distribution as Peter pointed out so GPL-compatible licenses would be
one possibility (although it also disallows some open source licenses).
Cheers,
Simon
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'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
