Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2495 bytes --]

Zimoun,

zimoun 写道：
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 
> <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
>> Thank you for fighting for this package in Guix.  I hope 
>> upstream
>> sees the light and Clarifies things.
>
> The issue is that upstream has disappeared, as usual in 
> scientific
> software. Someone writes a piece of code then publishes a paper 
> and
> sometimes the requirement for publication is to be pushed in
> mainstream collection of packages (Bioconductor in this 
> case). But the
> copyright holder does not maintain the code and instead write 
> another
> 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 ‘open’ and reproducible.

However, even if they don't maintain the code they can still 
relicence it with no effort on their part.  We can still hope.

>> zimoun 写道：
>
>> ‘Non-copyleft’ does not mean ‘non-free’.  All packages in Guix
>> must be free.  The Artistic 1.0 licence is *not free*.[0]
>
> It is not my point.

I think au fond it is.  Because your point was:

> Artistic 1.0 is free and non-copyleft when applied to Perl.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This just isn't true, and that's what I wanted to make clear 
above.

*Perl* is free, only because it is licenced under the GPL.  If 
 Perl were licenced only under the Artistic 1.0 licence, it would 
 not be in Guix.  I promise.

So Perl is really not relevant to this discussion at all.

If I'm still not making myself clear, I apologise & capitulate. 
We agree on all important points:

>> The FSF's legal counsel has decided that the Clarified version
>> does in fact ‘correct the vagueness of of the Artistic License
>> 1.0’[2].
>
> I understand. And I disagree. So I appeal. :-)

Hehe.  Even the FSF agrees that the Clarified version does only 
the *bare minimum* to not completely suck.  They certainly don't 
recommend it.

> Well, I understand you are defending the official GNU position.
> And currently Artisitic 1.0 will not be included in GNU Guix 
> because
> currently GNU claims that Artistic 1.0 is non-free.
> I am fine with that. :-)

Correct.  It's only the comparison with Perl that's bogus, not 
your opinions on the Artistic 1.0 licence itself.

> So I will appeal to FSF/GNU. ;-)

I admire your tenacity.  Good luck!

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]