[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0? |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:47:16 +0100 |
Hi Giovanni,
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:28, Giovanni Biscuolo <address@hidden> wrote:
> zimoun <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not
> > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the
> > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in
> > office's hours.)
> >
> >
> > For example, 2 files contains:
>
> [...]
>
> > The most of the files claim:
>
> [...]
>
> > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0?
>
> Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM
> (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is
> to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a
> way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some
> sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits
>
> If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the
> remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite
1.
This is my hope for the package flowPeak. Because it blocks my workflow at work.
Now, this package is in a personal channel but nothing provides a
guarantee that this channel would not disappear so the paper I am
working on would not be easily reproducible (in theory and
principles).
Be in the Guix tree affords more chance.
2.
This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free
one -- do not scale.
So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many
packages in Bioconductor?
If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people
managing Bioconductor.
If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-)
> P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF
> on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-)
I have used frenchy bad faith rhetoric argument. ;-)
As I said, if a couple on Bioconductor are Artistic 1.0, that's ok.
Otherwise, it is an issue.
Right now, there is too much *if*. :-)
Thanks,
simon
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, (continued)
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/12/19
Guix and Bioconductor., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/20
Re: Guix and Bioconductor., Ricardo Wurmus, 2019/12/20
[OT] Re: Guix and Bioconductor., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/21
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19