Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[zimoun]

Hi Tobias,

Thank you for the clarification.


On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:29, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道：
> > zimoun 写道：
> >> 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
> ‘vague’, 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 (=freedom) 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 (‘artistic licence’,
> ‘WTFPL’, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mess.

I am on the same wavelength.


All the best,
simon