On 03/28/2012 02:25 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > >> I did that partially: >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2012/01/msg00241.html >> Andrew Rambaut answered (ignoring CC to debian-med) that He has >> permission from Yang to use this code, which is useless for us in >> licensing question. >> > OK, thanks for the clarification. > > >> Zhieng Yang asks to use a forum for questions and bug reports, so there >> was no easy way to CC to debian-med. >> Here is the thread: >> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=9306 >> > Thanks for the link. Stupid clash of incompatible communication > channels, but you did right to ask there - thanks for your effort. > > >>>> I would like to upload the new version of seq-gen (current watch file is >>>> broken) because there is some number of users according popcon statistics. >>>> How should I proceed now ? simply change section to non-free/science in >>>> the debian/control and upload the new version? >>>> >>>> >>> Depending on your answer to my question above it is probably >>> contrib/science and yes if paml can not be freed this would be the way >>> to go. >>> >>> >> Good, than I will prepare the package for non-free. >> > Unfortunately there seems to be no work around. I have two remaining > remarks: > > 1. It seems that parts of PAML should be moved to a library (considering > the fact that you suspect that several projects might use this code). > > As far as I see it is not correct for seq-gen package. The header in files mentioned in debian/copyright has statement that the code is taken from the PAML package, but in the PAML distribution I couldn't find files with similar names. It seems that only some parts of code are taken from PAML and I don't see how making PAML a library can help in this case. But it can be true for other packages if they exist.
> 2. I'm sad to see the pool of our packages in non-free growing. It will > increase our maintenance burden and we should really try hard and > regularly talk to upstream to change their license. I'm a bit sad > that our PhyLip effort started at SouthPort[1] was basically ignored. > I wished that people have an opinion on this if they read this list. > It would help if people who not consider signing (which is fine for > sure) could explicitely state their reasons for not doing so to > let those, who are convinced about the petition might make aware about > flaws in their approach. I would really like to seek with higher > effort for successful methods to convince upstream authors. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed/Meeting/Southport2012/ePetition_Phylip > > Best regards, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
