[Top][All Lists]

[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


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,



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]