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 18:29:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> <87fthgqloc.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]:38307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzc2-0003IH-7E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:29:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzc0-0003zH-QM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:29:22 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]:39085) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihzc0-0003vO-F4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:29:20 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id e5so5707986qtm.6 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87fthgqloc.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, Thank you for the quick feedback. On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > zimoun 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=94in 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: > > =E2=80=9CWe cannot say that this is a free software license because i= t 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.=E2=80=9D > > However: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic > > =E2=80=9CThis 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.=E2=80=9D > 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