[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 18:29:51 +0100

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.

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.

Kind regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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