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 19:18:55 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> <87k16si685.fsf@nckx> 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]:45831) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0OD-0008EK-1i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:19:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0OB-0004G3-Lv for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:19:08 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]:39952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0OB-0004D2-Ew for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:19:07 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id e6so5830232qtq.7 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:19:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87k16si685.fsf@nckx> 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: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: Guix Devel Hi Tobias, again :-) On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > zimoun =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > Especially when this > > very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it > > may > > not be a real copyleft" [1]. > > =E2=80=A6but that's not this very licence, it's a completely different > one: the (disjunct) combination of the Artistic 1.0 licence *and > the GPL*, i.e. =E2=80=98choose one=E2=80=99. The result is only free bec= ause you > can *ignore* the Artistic 1.0 part. Maybe I misread. And I would like to avoid any confusion. So I have also read the French translation. Then again the English version. Where is the License of Perl 5 and below explicitly defined? There is no pointer... What I understand is: when the License of Perl 5 and below is used, then the copyright holder chooses either the Artistic 1.0, either the GPL. Then the License of Perl 5 and below is free but non-copyleft. Well, it appears to me a hack. I guess that there is a lot of Perl packages under Artistic 1.0 which seems an issue. So let create this License of Perl 5 and below saying: choose between Artistic 1.0 or GPL. And because you have this choice, everything is fine. I probably misread and because it is not Guix related, I would like to ask to GNU or FSF. Do you know where can I post an email? All the best, simon