Actually it may be the stronger GNU I really object to. I don't want to force anyone that uses my code to license their code the same way.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Jim Kent <k...@soe.ucsc.edu> wrote: > I"m sorry, I don't support the GPL at all! > > 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 >> > >
