Hi Andreas, I thought I'd left the ball in your court....
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > its a long time ago and I have not heard from you back then when we were > discussing the license of BLAT. > > As you can read in the bug log of the Debian package of the BioConductor > component rtracklayer here > > https://bugs.debian.org/807580 > > this code is based upon code obtained from > > http://genome-source.cse.ucsc.edu/gitweb/?p=kent.git > > and thus covered by your license that is not compatible with DFSG > guidelines. It would be really great if we could refresh the past > discussion to find a free license for this code. The alternative would > be that we need to kick a chain of about 10 dependencies of BioConductor > packages out of Debian. > > 'm not sure whether I mentioned it before but we had a long standing > discussion with Joe Felsenstein about PHYLIP and finally he confirmed > that the gain he had over *years* was so small that the loss to get > better distribution, cooperation and patches might outweight this by > far. I wonder whether you might be interested in this kind of > experiences - at least Joe has decided in 2014 for a BSD-2-clause > license. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:22:12PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote: > > Hmm. The reason I'm comfortable having you redistribute it is that I > know > > you will put it in a section where it is clearly marked as license > > required. > > > > The tricky part is where re-redistribution comes in. > > > > Perhaps in your files is a license that has a word or two on this subject > > already? If not then I must pause and think, and discuss with my people > as > > well. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:57:39PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote: > > > > It is a short license. It does not forbid modification, and we got > no > > > > problem with that. We do want to _check_ on redistribution to make > sure > > > > that it is clear we reserve commercial licensing rights. > > > > > > > > Hopefully this clears things up, but if not let me know, and we can > add a > > > > few more words to the license if you like. > > > > > > I think this is the problematic part: How do you practically want to > > > check the redistribution via Debian? Even if the non-free section is > > > not official Debian the package would available from the Debian mirrors > > > and from several potential derivatives. Surely it is no dedicated > > > distribution of BLAT but the license is not totally clear whether we > are > > > allowed to do what we intend to do (distributing BLAT in source and > > > binary form) even if it is the users obligation to read the license > text > > > and check whether he is allowed to use the program. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > > > > > could you please give some clarification about the BLAT license. > Our > > > > > ftpmaster interprets it as not distributable. We are aware that it > > > > > needs to go into the non-free section but it would be a shame if it > > > > > could not even go there. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:01:50PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > the license of BLAT is a bit strange. It just allows the use of > the > > > > > > software but no modification and no distribution. Did I miss > > > > > > anything? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thorsten > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Debian-med-packaging mailing list > > debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
