Re: FYI: New Abyss 2.0 contains undistributable components

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Shaun,

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:49:16PM +, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Hi, Andreas. All of the code in ABySS to which I hold copyright is GPL
> without restriction.

Good. :-)

> I'm not the sole copyright holder of ABySS. The BC
> Cancer Agency holds much of the copyright. The best I can do is to make a
> recommendation to the technology transfer office lawyer. I'll write the
> e-mail, and we'll see how it goes.

This would be great.  We are currently trying to free several pieces of
software and having a free ABySS would be complete this set.

Thanks for trying

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: FYI: New Abyss 2.0 contains undistributable components

[Shaun Jackman]

Hi, Andreas. All of the code in ABySS to which I hold copyright is GPL
without restriction. I'm not the sole copyright holder of ABySS. The BC
Cancer Agency holds much of the copyright. The best I can do is to make a
recommendation to the technology transfer office lawyer. I'll write the
e-mail, and we'll see how it goes.

Cheers,
Shaun

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 at 08:34 Andreas Tille  wrote:

> Hi Shaun,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:50:57PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > The license of ABySS 2.0 is unchanged from ABySS 1.9. The license of
> ABySS
> > and all of the files contained in  https://github.com/bcgsc/abyss are
> > described in https://github.com/bcgsc/abyss/blob/master/COPYRIGHT
>
> I vaguely remember that we discussed ABySS license in private mail but
> I'd like to come back here on the list to make you consider giving up a
> non-free license.  Besides the fact that it would be better to drop the
> non-commercial restriction at all I think a license saying
>
>   You may use, redistribute and modify this software for non-commercial
>   purposes under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>
> The restriction you apply to GPL afterwards seems to contradict the
> GPL idea IMHO.
>
> It would be great if you could reconsider to simply drop the restriction.
>
> Kind regards
>
>  Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
-- 

http://sjackman.ca

Re: Advices for packaging a daemon of galileo

[Dylan]

Hi Ben,

Le 6 sept. 2016 1:20 AM, "Ben Finney"  a écrit :
>
> Could you instead have the existing ‘galileo’ package install the
> SystemD service, but not activate it?
>
> That way, anyone who installs ‘galileo’ can choose whether to enable the
> service. You could describe how to do that in the ‘README.Debian’
> document.
>

Thanks for your comment.

It was my first idea but in this case, users who want to have the
daemon should 1. enable the daemon, 2. modify the udev rules and 3.
possibly create a specific user. So after installing the package,
there are many steps to do manually before to have a daemon running. I
would like to simplify as much as possible the installation of the
daemon.

Thanks

Best regards,
Dylan

Re: FYI: New Abyss 2.0 contains undistributable components

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Shaun,

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:50:57PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> The license of ABySS 2.0 is unchanged from ABySS 1.9. The license of ABySS
> and all of the files contained in  https://github.com/bcgsc/abyss are
> described in https://github.com/bcgsc/abyss/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

I vaguely remember that we discussed ABySS license in private mail but
I'd like to come back here on the list to make you consider giving up a
non-free license.  Besides the fact that it would be better to drop the
non-commercial restriction at all I think a license saying

  You may use, redistribute and modify this software for non-commercial
  purposes under the terms of the GNU General Public License

The restriction you apply to GPL afterwards seems to contradict the
GPL idea IMHO.

It would be great if you could reconsider to simply drop the restriction.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Problem(s) solved (was: Re: Help with nut-nutrition and Nut

[rhkramer]

I got both nut-nutrition and Nut (the fltk GUI version) compiled and running.

The problems were pretty much newbie compiling mistakes--I had to install:

   * libfltk1.3-dev --to get the development headers for fltk 1.3
   * libxpm-dev --to get the development headers for X11

I then found some very anomalous results, and, after reading the man page 
several times and doing some experimentation, I realized the problem--if you 
enter only one meal, the program multiplies the nutrients for that one meal by 
three (assuming it is set for three meals a day) to get a daily value, and 
that is what is displayed.

I'll have to play around a little more, but I guess it is important to have 
something listed for each meal of the day (even plain water) to get the 
analysis to come out correct.  

Aside: I can't help but say that seems like an "unusual" design decision.

The GUI interface is much better than the CLI text menu interface, but not as 
good as some of the more modern GUI interfaces.  I'll have to play around with 
it for a few days to decide whether I can live with it or not.

On Monday, September 05, 2016 02:56:48 PM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to compile nut-nutrition and Nut in order to see if the fltk GUI
> in Nut is significantly more user friendly than the CLI menu interface in
> nut- nutrition, and more on a par with things like CRON-O-meter or
> MyFitnessPal or similar modern nutrition applications with a GUI.
> 
> I'm having trouble with the compile, but I won't go into that for the
> moment-- if somebody tells me that the Nut GUI is on a par with things
> like CRON-O- meter or MyFitnessPal, then I'll pursue the compile (by
> posting some relevant questions here).
> 
> If not, I'll just forget about nut.