Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > > On 25.03.2017 14:29, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently >> interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source >>

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

On 25.03.2017 14:29, Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > > Dear All, > > thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently > interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source > contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite > limited: I would

Re: [Rd] non-infectious license for R package?

Dear All, thanks a lot for all the quick and helpful responses! I'm currently interested in the "stance" of this community towards closed source contributions. The way I understand it, currently my options are quite limited: I would most likely need to use a remote procedure call API, and build

Re: [Rd] Error in documentation for ?legend

Right, that's my point. The help page mentions a `title.cex`, like I said; saying that `cex` sets the default `title.cex` sure implies to me (and presumably to the other people whose discussion I linked) that a `title.cex` parameter exists. Since no such parameter exists, this bit in the

Re: [Rd] Error in documentation for ?legend

> On 25 Mar 2017, at 00:39 , POLITZER-AHLES, Stephen [CBS] > wrote: > > To whom it may concern: > > > The help page for ?legend refers to a `title.cex` parameter, which suggests > that the function has such a parameter. No it does not. All arguments are