From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0? Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:47:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> <87k16si685.fsf@nckx> <87h81whxmw.fsf@nckx> <87o8w373d7.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iiFoi-00086d-4l for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 05:47:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiFog-0002gC-9L for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 05:47:31 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]:36677) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiFof-0002cy-TL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 05:47:30 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com with SMTP id m14so3446035qvl.3 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 02:47:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87o8w373d7.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> 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: Giovanni Biscuolo Cc: Guix Devel Hi Giovanni, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:28, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > zimoun writes: > > [...] > > > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not > > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the > > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in > > office's hours.) > > > > > > For example, 2 files contains: > > [...] > > > The most of the files claim: > > [...] > > > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? > > Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM > (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is > to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a > way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some > sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits > > If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the > remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite 1. This is my hope for the package flowPeak. Because it blocks my workflow at work. Now, this package is in a personal channel but nothing provides a guarantee that this channel would not disappear so the paper I am working on would not be easily reproducible (in theory and principles). Be in the Guix tree affords more chance. 2. This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free one -- do not scale. So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many packages in Bioconductor? If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people managing Bioconductor. If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-) > P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF > on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-) I have used frenchy bad faith rhetoric argument. ;-) As I said, if a couple on Bioconductor are Artistic 1.0, that's ok. Otherwise, it is an issue. Right now, there is too much *if*. :-) Thanks, simon