Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi Ricardo,

Thank you for the quick feedback.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> 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’t be correct.  non-copyleft is for free licenses only, and
> the Artistic 1.0 does not qualify.

The Perl License section says:

<<
This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the
GNU GPL—in other words, you can choose either of those two licenses.
It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real
copyleft. It is compatible with the GNU GPL because the GNU GPL is one
of the alternatives.

We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you
write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.
Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to
use just the GNU GPL.
>>

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense


I read "It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a
real copyleft." therefore it means non-copyleft.



> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense says:
>
>     “We 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.”
>
> However:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic
>
>     “This 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.”
>

I already know these statements. And I disagree. Currently, the
license is considered free when applied to Perl but non-free
otherwise. It does not make sense.


Well, if I understand well, as GNU Guix maintainer, you will have the
official GNU position, right?
So let discuss this official GNU position. :-)
Do you know in which mailing list can I post?


Cheers,
simon