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

[Andreas Tille]

Hi again,

I just want to repeat my question whether there is some kind of an
official licensing statement which is more than

    "can release under MPL"

We simply do not yet know whether we need to remove rtracklayer and its
dependencies from Debian.

Thanks for considering and keeping us informed

     Andreas.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I noticed that BioConductor folks have clarified their licensing statement
> in version 1.30.3 of rtracklayer by adding a LICENSE file saying:
> 
>   The contents of "src/ucsc" fall under the license below. Note that
>   the "src/lib", "src/inc" and "src/utils" refer to directories within
>   the original Kent source tree. In rtracklayer, the files are all under
>   "src/ucsc".
>   
>   All files are copyrighted, but license is hereby granted for personal,
>   academic, and non-profit use.  A license is also granted for the
>   contents of the src/lib, src/inc and src/utils and python directories
>   for commercial users.
> 
> While this is probably sufficient for BioConductor use the issue remains
> for Debian since it is per definition non-free (as we discussed before).
> In your mail below you wrote you "can release under MPL".  Would you
> actually do this by declaring it somewhere on the download place at least
> (preferably inside the code but that's probably more work than needed
> for the moment).
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>         Andreas.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:37:36AM -0800, Jim Kent wrote:
> > 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.michael at 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 <plessy at 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
> > >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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