From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0? Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:17:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87fthgqloc.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32807) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzRA-0003QF-Jk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:18:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzR8-0003WF-IW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:18:07 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21193) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzR8-0003Lr-2K for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:18:06 -0500 In-reply-to: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: zimoun Cc: Guix Devel zimoun writes: > The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do > not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the > inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. That wouldn=E2=80=99t be correct. non-copyleft is for free licenses only, = and the Artistic 1.0 does not qualify. > Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear > me clearer; they are both doomed! > Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is > more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. Especially when this > very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may > not be a real copyleft" [1]. > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense says: =E2=80=9CWe cannot say that this is a free software license because it = is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl.=E2=80=9D However: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic =E2=80=9CThis license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the Artistic License 1.0.=E2=80=9D -- Ricardo