Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

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

Hi Giovanni,


On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:28, Giovanni Biscuolo <g@xelera.eu> wrote:

> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not
> > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the
> > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in
> > office's hours.)
> >
> >
> > For example, 2 files contains:
>
> [...]
>
> > The most of the files claim:
>
> [...]
>
> > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0?
>
> Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM
> (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is
> to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a
> way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some
> sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits
>
> If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the
> remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite

1.
This is my hope for the package flowPeak. Because it blocks my workflow at work.
Now, this package is in a personal channel but nothing provides a
guarantee that this channel would not disappear so the paper I am
working on would not be easily reproducible (in theory and
principles).
Be in the Guix tree affords more chance.

2.
This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free
one -- do not scale.
So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many
packages in Bioconductor?
If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people
managing Bioconductor.
If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-)




> P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF
> on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-)

I have used frenchy bad faith rhetoric argument. ;-)

As I said, if a couple on Bioconductor are Artistic 1.0, that's ok.
Otherwise, it is an issue.
Right now, there is too much *if*. :-)


Thanks,
simon