From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0? Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:38:49 +0100 Message-ID: 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]:52996) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihypL-0008BO-Pm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:39:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihypK-0004ak-9v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:39:03 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]:46287) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihypK-0004Us-23 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:39:02 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id r14so5106579qke.13 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:39:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Guix Devel Hi Ricardo, On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:47, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus wrote= : > >> That=E2=80=99s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. =E2=80=9Cl= icenses.scm=E2=80=9D also > >> contains =E2=80=9Cclarified-artistic=E2=80=9D, which is essentially th= e same as version > >> 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be > >> interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. > It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic License > instead. It=E2=80=99s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they r= eally > want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be no trouble > for them to switch. I have no news from the flowPeak's maintainer and I think the package is still in Bioconductor 3.10 but without any recent updates. 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. 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 All the best, simon