R devel - Sep 2009 - Non-GPL packages for R

Subject: Non-GPL packages for R

Packages that are not licensed in a way that permits re-distribution on
CRAN are frequently a source of comment and concern on R-help and other
lists. A good example of this problem is the Rdonlp2 package that has 
caused a lot of annoyance for a number of optimization users in R. They 
are also an issue for efforts like Dirk Eddelbuettel's cran2deb.

There are, however, a number of circumstances where non-GPL equivalent
packages may be important to users. This can imply that users need to
both install an R package and one or more dependencies that must be
separately obtained and licensed. One such situation is where a new
program is still under development and the license is not clear, as in
the recent work we pursued with respect to Mike Powell's BOBYQA. We
wanted to verify if this were useful before we considered distribution,
and Powell had been offering copies of his code on request. Thus we
could experiment, but not redistribute. Recently Powell's approval to
redistribute has been obtained.

We believe that it is important that non-redistributable codes be
excluded from CRAN, but that they could be available on a repository
such as r-forge. However, we would like to see a clearer indication of
the license status on r-forge. One possibility is an inclusion of a
statement and/or icon indicating such status e.g., green for GPL or
equivalent, amber for uncertain, red for restricted. Another may be a
division of directories, so that GPL-equivalent packages are kept
separate from uncertain or restricted licensed ones.

We welcome comments and suggestions on both the concept and the
technicalities.

John Nash & Ravi Varadhan

The SystemRequirements: field of the DESCRIPTION file normally
lists external dependencies whether free or non-free.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Prof. John C Nash <nashjc at uottawa.ca>
wrote:
> Subject: Non-GPL packages for R
>
> Packages that are not licensed in a way that permits re-distribution on
> CRAN are frequently a source of comment and concern on R-help and other
> lists. A good example of this problem is the Rdonlp2 package that has
caused
> a lot of annoyance for a number of optimization users in R. They are also
an
> issue for efforts like Dirk Eddelbuettel's cran2deb.
>
> There are, however, a number of circumstances where non-GPL equivalent
> packages may be important to users. This can imply that users need to
> both install an R package and one or more dependencies that must be
> separately obtained and licensed. One such situation is where a new
> program is still under development and the license is not clear, as in
> the recent work we pursued with respect to Mike Powell's BOBYQA. We
> wanted to verify if this were useful before we considered distribution,
> and Powell had been offering copies of his code on request. Thus we
> could experiment, but not redistribute. Recently Powell's approval to
> redistribute has been obtained.
>
> We believe that it is important that non-redistributable codes be
> excluded from CRAN, but that they could be available on a repository
> such as r-forge. However, we would like to see a clearer indication of
> the license status on r-forge. One possibility is an inclusion of a
> statement and/or icon indicating such status e.g., green for GPL or
> equivalent, amber for uncertain, red for restricted. Another may be a
> division of directories, so that GPL-equivalent packages are kept
> separate from uncertain or restricted licensed ones.
>
> We welcome comments and suggestions on both the concept and the
> technicalities.
>
> John Nash & Ravi Varadhan
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>