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 22:40:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> <87k16si685.fsf@nckx> <87h81whxmw.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]:45680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ii3XU-0001dP-4r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:40:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii3XO-0004GT-OI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:40:55 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]:46654) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii3XO-0004Ca-BQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:40:50 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id r14so5884533qke.13 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:40:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87h81whxmw.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, On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:24, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: [...] > > piece of code, try to publish a paper, etc.. Well the > > Reproducibility > > of Science crisis. > > That is a shame. And that while other scientists (like you) are > working hard to make research more =E2=80=98open=E2=80=99 and reproducibl= e. Here 'open' is not enough. ;-) > However, even if they don't maintain the code they can still > relicence it with no effort on their part. We can still hope. 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 author of this software is Steven Fortune. Copyright (c) 1994 by AT&= T * Bell Laboratories. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any [...] * This code was originally written by Stephan Fortune in C code. I, Shane O'Sullivan, * have since modified it, encapsulating it in a C++ class and, fixing memory leaks and * adding accessors to the Voronoi Edges. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any [...] >> The most of the files claim: << * The author of this software is Yongchao Ge. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting * documentation for such software. * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, THE AUTHOR DOES NOT MAKE ANY * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> Well, the only mention of the Artistic 1.0 license is these 3 files: README, DESCRIPTION and vignettes/flowPeaks-guide.Rnw. Does that mean I am allowed to reuse almost everything and repack in another repo licensing with a "good" license? [...] > If I'm still not making myself clear, I apologise & capitulate. I got it. Yes it is clear! > > So I will appeal to FSF/GNU. ;-) > > I admire your tenacity. Good luck! Before I need to assembling the file. :-) For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? Thank for all your explanation and your time. All the best, simon