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 19:04:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87pnlz9lro.fsf@elephly.net> <877e869t80.fsf@elephly.net> <87k16si685.fsf@nckx> <87immci5ps.fsf@nckx> 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]:54454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0Ag-0007NC-GH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:05:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0Af-0005hV-4u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:05:10 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]:47073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ii0Ae-0005eO-Rq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:05:09 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id 38so5766287qtb.13 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:05:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87immci5ps.fsf@nckx> 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: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: Guix Devel Hi Tobias, Thank you for the clarification. On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:29, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > zimoun =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > >> Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor > >> case > >> is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. > > > > No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( > > I should clarify: when the FSF calls the Artistic 1.0 licence > =E2=80=98vague=E2=80=99, that's not an aesthetic criticism. > > It means that the licence is broken and fails to do what it claims > to do: give you the licence (=3Dfreedom) to do something that would > not otherwise be allowed by copyright law. It means that you > can't prove, in court, that the licence says what you thought it > said. It's not merely ugly, it's defective and potentially > dangerous. I agree. It is what I tried to express in my other email. You explained here better than I did elsewhere. :-) > This always happens when programmers think they can write their > own licence. It starts with a punny name (=E2=80=98artistic licence=E2= =80=99, > =E2=80=98WTFPL=E2=80=99, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mes= s. I am on the same wavelength. All the best, simon