Hi Olivier and all, thanks for the feedback. I have just adapted the barrnap package to go into the non-free area and added the respective licenses to d/copyright. If there are no other suggestions, I would consider the package to be ready for upload then. I will also reply to Frank Gloeckner and inform Torsten Seemann about the results of the enquiry later.
Thanks Sascha On 29/11/14 11:49, olivier.sal...@codeless.fr wrote: > On 11/29/2014 12:29 PM, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: >> Hi all, >> >>>> But we would like to ask you to clearly indicate that the profiles are >>>> only free for non-commercial usage, commercial users need a licence. >>>> The easiest approach is to add a reference to the SILVA terms of >>>> license assigned to the software/profile. >>> Argghh! this will prevent from being in free section. And I suppose >>> those profiles are mandary for software usage ? >> To ensure that the Debian version and the upstream version produce the >> same results, yes, they are necessary. I guess there are two choices now: >> >> 1. Put barrnap in non-free. What consequences would that have for a >> 'regular' academic user -- they would have to enable non-free on a >> default install, right? > Yeap, they need to add non-free to apt sources >> >> 2. Use an alternative set of pHMMs in the Debian version of barrnap, >> only including those which are built from Rfam alignments only (Rfam >> has a free license (CC0)). However, that would strongly limit the >> functionality of barrnap as whole rRNA families could end up >> being missing from the output of the dfsg compliant version. >> >> I guess to have a usable barrnap version, 1. is the only viable >> solution. Any comments? > I agree >> Thanks >> Sascha > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5479c6ac.2080...@steinbiss.name
