Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> I already know these statements. And I disagree. Currently, the
> [artistic] license [1.0] is considered free when applied to Perl but non-free
> otherwise. It does not make sense.

This is a misunderstanding.  The Perl license says[1]:

    It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either:

    a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
       Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version,
       or
    b) the "Artistic License". […]

We choose the first one when redistributing Perl, so Perl is under the
GPLv1+.  The Artistic License (1.0) does not come into play at all
because we are fine with GPLv1+.

If Perl was *only* available under the Artistic License 1.0 we could not
in fact redistribute it with Guix and that would be catastrophic.
Luckily, the license allows the distribution under the terms of the GPL,
so we’re fine.

[1]: https://dev.perl.org/licenses/

--
Ricardo