Sorry accidentally hit send. Anyway, rtracklayer's license should not affect the license of any of its dependencies. At least, the R community has never taken that stance, as far as I know.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Lawrence <micha...@gene.com> wrote: > Are you guys saying that an R package that depends on another R > package is considered a derivative work? If so, there are probably an > enormous number of CRAN/Bioc packages in violation. My choice of > license for rtracklayer should not affect the > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: >> Le Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 08:47:42AM -0800, Jim Kent a écrit : >>> Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I'm just getting a lot of >>> post-vacation mail pile up. >>> >>> A copyleft license sounds like it would work. In particular I would be >>> happy to distribute it under Common Development and Distribution License >> >> Thanks Jim for your help ! >> >> The GNU General Public License is said to be incompatible with the Common >> Development and Distribution License, and I worry that it may cause problem >> to >> Bioconductor modules that directly or transitively depend or import from >> rtracklayer. >> >> If you are looking for a non-GPL alternative, the Mozilla Public License >> version 2.0 has similar features to the CDDL (it shares a common ancestor), >> but >> is compatible with the GPL. >> >> Have a nice Sunday, >> >> -- >> Charles Plessy >> Debian Med packaging team, >> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med >> Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
