On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 18:04 -0800, Scott Gonyea wrote:
> Heh. That's annoying. The R Mailing List should really set the
> "reply-to" header.
No it shouldn't, if you mean set the list as the reply-to address that
i. If I want to reply to a message you sent, I Reply to you. If I want
that reply to
Heh. That's annoying. The R Mailing List should really set the "reply-to"
header.
I wrote two e-mail, so here they are:
There's a 'source' command in R, so I should not use that word. If you're not
copying out chunks of code and inserting them, you own the code itself. No one
can somehow
On 22/12/2010 5:35 PM, David Scott wrote:
I am writing a package for a company for its internal use only.
What is an appropriate license statement for the DESCRIPTION file?
I think "Internal use only, not for distribution" is reasonable. The
copyright statement is separate from the licens
I am writing a package for a company for its internal use only.
What is an appropriate license statement for the DESCRIPTION file?
I would like a statement which reflects the private and proprietary
nature of the package, giving copyright to the writer and the company. I
also don't want to vi
