Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[zimoun]

Hi Ricardo,


On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:47, Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> wrote:

> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> wrote:

> >> That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free.  “licenses.scm” also
> >> contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version
> >> 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be
> >> interpreted as conditions making the software non-free.

> 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.

I have no news from the flowPeak's maintainer and I think the package
is still in Bioconductor 3.10 but without any recent updates.

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.

Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear
me clearer; they are both doomed!
Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is
more a flavour of taste than a 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].


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense

All the best,
simon