[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#807580: More licensing issues (Was: BLAT license)

Fri Dec 11 08:03:50 UTC 2015

Perhaps I did not phrase it directly enough.  I ended my last email with
> > > Perhaps in your files is a license that has a word or two on this
subject
> > > already?

By this I mean,  do you have a license that mentions something about not
allowing sublicenses on the license?  Could you send it to me if you do?

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Andreas Tille <andreas at fam-tille.de> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> hmmm, I do not remember any supposed license change from your side.  May
> be I was missing some mail?
>
> Any clarification would be helpful
>
>       Andreas.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:15:20AM +0100, Jim Kent wrote:
> > Hi Andreas, I thought I'd left the ball in your court....
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas at 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 <tille at 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 <tille at 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-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > > >
> > >
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://fam-tille.de
> > >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20151211/7c979277/attachment-0002.html>