Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

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.

> Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear
> me clearer; they are both doomed!
> Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is
> more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. Especially when this
> very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may
> not be a real copyleft" [1].
>
>
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense

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.”

--
Ricardo