Actually though, looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, the only differences I don't care much about, so if it makes it easier, I can release it under that as well.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.mich...@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 >
