Hi Jim,
thanks for the clarification. Do you maintain somewhere some official
repository where we could fetch these files from. I assumed Github
would be official ...
Thanks for your quick and helpful response
Andreas.
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:32:33PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote:
> Hmm, the license statements are like so on these 4:
>
> /* hmmstats.h - Stuff for doing statistical analysis in general and
>
> * hidden Markov models in particular.
>
> *
>
> * This file is copyright 2000 Jim Kent, but license is hereby
>
> * granted for all use - public, private or commercial. */
>
> not what is in the github note:
>
> * Copyright (C) 2000 Jim Kent. This source code may be freely used *
> * for personal, academic, and non-profit purposes. Commercial use *
> * permitted only by explicit agreement with Jim Kent (jim_k...@pacbell.net)
> *
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > you probably remember my constant nagging abou the licensing of your
> > library code. Inside the bug report in Debian BTS[1] you mentioned MPL
> > yourself. Since I did not received any definitive answer stronger than
> >
> > "looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, ... I can release it under
> > that as well."
> >
> > I was searching the web for potential new releases of the code. I found
> > something at Github which has only four files left with a non-free
> > license and I mentioned this in the according bug report there[2]. From
> > what I can see when inspecting the whole directory it looks pretty much
> > like an unwanted leftover since all other files have later copyright and
> > a free license.
> >
> > It would be really great if you could clarify this.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your cooperation
> >
> > Andreas.
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807580#112
> > [2] https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2
> >
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:56:16AM -0700, John St. John wrote:
> > > Hi Andreas, this issue should be taken up directly with Jim Kent. If he
> > gives the OK I am more than happy to update those problematic headers. This
> > is not my code, so I am not sure what was intended between the conflicting
> > statement in the README that was part of the Kent source tree at the time,
> > and header comments in the individual libraries you mentioned.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> > > https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2#issuecomment-217906316
> >
> > --
> > http://fam-tille.de
> >
--
http://fam-tille.de
