[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
From: |
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice |
Subject: |
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0? |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:18:50 +0100 |
Zimoun,
Thank you for fighting for this package in Guix. I hope upstream
sees the light and Clarifies things.
zimoun 写道:
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> wrote:
It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic
License
instead. It’s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they
really
want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be
no trouble
for them to switch.
This is the only solution. Any other licence in licenses.scm is
fine too.
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.
‘Non-copyleft’ does not mean ‘non-free’. All packages in Guix
must be free. The Artistic 1.0 licence is *not free*.[0]
I do understand your frustration & hacker instinct to ‘fix’ the
problem in some clever way, but that's not how licences work. The
Artistic 1.0 story really ends here.
I'm not trying to demotivate you. I just don't want you to waste
your time & effort in this dead-end direction. Bugging upstream
until they respond is the only solution.
Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not
appear
me clearer; they are both doomed!
I hope you'll understand that I'm also not trying to be rude when
I say (y)our personal opinions are entirely valid and absolutely
irrelevant :-)
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].
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. :-(
Especially when this
very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it
may
not be a real copyleft" [1].
…but that's not this very licence, it's a completely different
one: the (disjunct) combination of the Artistic 1.0 licence *and
the GPL*, i.e. ‘choose one’. The result is only free because you
can *ignore* the Artistic 1.0 part.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[0]:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense
[2]:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <=
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/20
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/20
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2019/12/20
- Guix and Bioconductor., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/20
- Re: Guix and Bioconductor., Ricardo Wurmus, 2019/12/20