Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
zimoun writes: > This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free > one -- do not scale. > So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many > packages in Bioconductor? > If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people > managing Bioconductor. > If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-) In my experience tt happens rarely enough that it appears to scale just fine. Every time it happens is a drag, of course, but only a small percentage of CRAN and Bioconductor packages suffers from problems like that. That’s still an estimated dozens of packages, but it’s not quite as bad as it may seem. -- Ricardo
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Giovanni, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:28, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > zimoun writes: > > [...] > > > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not > > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the > > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in > > office's hours.) > > > > > > For example, 2 files contains: > > [...] > > > The most of the files claim: > > [...] > > > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? > > Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM > (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is > to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a > way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some > sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits > > If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the > remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite 1. This is my hope for the package flowPeak. Because it blocks my workflow at work. Now, this package is in a personal channel but nothing provides a guarantee that this channel would not disappear so the paper I am working on would not be easily reproducible (in theory and principles). Be in the Guix tree affords more chance. 2. This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free one -- do not scale. So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many packages in Bioconductor? If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people managing Bioconductor. If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-) > P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF > on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-) I have used frenchy bad faith rhetoric argument. ;-) As I said, if a couple on Bioconductor are Artistic 1.0, that's ok. Otherwise, it is an issue. Right now, there is too much *if*. :-) Thanks, simon
Perl modules dual licensing (was Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?)
Hi zimoun zimoun writes: [...] > Where is the License of Perl 5 and below explicitly defined? There is > no pointer... Ricardo pointed you to https://dev.perl.org/licenses/, that is a web version of this https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl5.git/blob/HEAD:/README Perl is dual licensed at least since 1994-10-17 (see the README history [1] > What I understand is: when the License of Perl 5 There is no "License of Perl 5", it is Perl 5 that is dual licensed The same dual license scheme is usually (usually?!?) adopted by Perl modules, at least those on CPAN http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#How_is_Perl_licensed > and below is used, then the copyright holder chooses either the > Artistic 1.0, either the GPL. Then the License of Perl 5 and below is > free but non-copyleft. Since there is no "License of Perl 5" that license cannot be qualified :-) > Well, it appears to me a hack. I guess that there is a lot of Perl > packages under Artistic 1.0 which seems an issue. I don't know how many packages/modules are distributed only using Artistic License 1.0, but please consider that as I said above that *many* are dual licensed. The fact that Perl modules are (must?) commonly dual licensed is somewhat a mystery to me, but I do not care :-D > So let create this License of Perl 5 and below saying: choose between > Artistic 1.0 or GPL. And because you have this choice, everything is > fine. > > I probably misread No, you do not misread: dual licensing is used in many situation and is non a "hack", it's the decision of the copyright holder to allow different legal uses of the software In this particular case, **fortunately** the dual licensing was adopted "since the beginning" to fix the problems with Artistic License [...] Last things about names: since Oct 2019 [2] Perl 5 is Perl (Perl 4 is gone long ago) and Perl 6 is Raku, so finally there is no more need to say "Perl 5" :-) Ciao! Gio' [1] https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl5.git/history/HEAD:/README [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/802329/ -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hello zimoun, zimoun writes: [...] > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in > office's hours.) > > > For example, 2 files contains: [...] > The most of the files claim: [...] > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite WDYT? Sorry I cannot help you sorting out the licenses in this package (next year I'm going to refactor my timetable for Guix... but this is another story) Thanks! Gio' [...] P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-) -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Tobias, On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:24, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: [...] > > piece of code, try to publish a paper, etc.. Well the > > Reproducibility > > of Science crisis. > > That is a shame. And that while other scientists (like you) are > working hard to make research more ‘open’ and reproducible. Here 'open' is not enough. ;-) > However, even if they don't maintain the code they can still > relicence it with no effort on their part. We can still hope. The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in office's hours.) For example, 2 files contains: << * The author of this software is Steven Fortune. Copyright (c) 1994 by AT&T * Bell Laboratories. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any [...] * This code was originally written by Stephan Fortune in C code. I, Shane O'Sullivan, * have since modified it, encapsulating it in a C++ class and, fixing memory leaks and * adding accessors to the Voronoi Edges. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any [...] >> The most of the files claim: << * The author of this software is Yongchao Ge. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting * documentation for such software. * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, THE AUTHOR DOES NOT MAKE ANY * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> Well, the only mention of the Artistic 1.0 license is these 3 files: README, DESCRIPTION and vignettes/flowPeaks-guide.Rnw. Does that mean I am allowed to reuse almost everything and repack in another repo licensing with a "good" license? [...] > If I'm still not making myself clear, I apologise & capitulate. I got it. Yes it is clear! > > So I will appeal to FSF/GNU. ;-) > > I admire your tenacity. Good luck! Before I need to assembling the file. :-) For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? Thank for all your explanation and your time. All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Ricardo, On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:13, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > This is a misunderstanding. The Perl license says[1]: Thank you for the pointer and the explanation. All is clear and I am fine. :-) Cheers, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Zimoun, zimoun 写道： On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: Thank you for fighting for this package in Guix. I hope upstream sees the light and Clarifies things. The issue is that upstream has disappeared, as usual in scientific software. Someone writes a piece of code then publishes a paper and sometimes the requirement for publication is to be pushed in mainstream collection of packages (Bioconductor in this case). But the copyright holder does not maintain the code and instead write another piece of code, try to publish a paper, etc.. Well the Reproducibility of Science crisis. That is a shame. And that while other scientists (like you) are working hard to make research more ‘open’ and reproducible. However, even if they don't maintain the code they can still relicence it with no effort on their part. We can still hope. zimoun 写道： ‘Non-copyleft’ does not mean ‘non-free’. All packages in Guix must be free. The Artistic 1.0 licence is *not free*.[0] It is not my point. I think au fond it is. Because your point was: Artistic 1.0 is free and non-copyleft when applied to Perl. This just isn't true, and that's what I wanted to make clear above. *Perl* is free, only because it is licenced under the GPL. If Perl were licenced only under the Artistic 1.0 licence, it would not be in Guix. I promise. So Perl is really not relevant to this discussion at all. If I'm still not making myself clear, I apologise & capitulate. We agree on all important points: The FSF's legal counsel has decided that the Clarified version does in fact ‘correct the vagueness of of the Artistic License 1.0’[2]. I understand. And I disagree. So I appeal. :-) Hehe. Even the FSF agrees that the Clarified version does only the *bare minimum* to not completely suck. They certainly don't recommend it. Well, I understand you are defending the official GNU position. And currently Artisitic 1.0 will not be included in GNU Guix because currently GNU claims that Artistic 1.0 is non-free. I am fine with that. :-) Correct. It's only the comparison with Perl that's bogus, not your opinions on the Artistic 1.0 licence itself. So I will appeal to FSF/GNU. ;-) I admire your tenacity. Good luck! Kind regards, T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
zimoun writes: > I already know these statements. And I disagree. Currently, the > [artistic] license [1.0] is considered free when applied to Perl but non-free > otherwise. It does not make sense. This is a misunderstanding. The Perl license says[1]: It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License". […] We choose the first one when redistributing Perl, so Perl is under the GPLv1+. The Artistic License (1.0) does not come into play at all because we are fine with GPLv1+. If Perl was *only* available under the Artistic License 1.0 we could not in fact redistribute it with Guix and that would be catastrophic. Luckily, the license allows the distribution under the terms of the GPL, so we’re fine. [1]: https://dev.perl.org/licenses/ -- Ricardo
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Tobias, again :-) On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > zimoun 写道： > > Especially when this > > very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it > > may > > not be a real copyleft" [1]. > > …but that's not this very licence, it's a completely different > one: the (disjunct) combination of the Artistic 1.0 licence *and > the GPL*, i.e. ‘choose one’. The result is only free because you > can *ignore* the Artistic 1.0 part. Maybe I misread. And I would like to avoid any confusion. So I have also read the French translation. Then again the English version. Where is the License of Perl 5 and below explicitly defined? There is no pointer... What I understand is: when the License of Perl 5 and below is used, then the copyright holder chooses either the Artistic 1.0, either the GPL. Then the License of Perl 5 and below is free but non-copyleft. Well, it appears to me a hack. I guess that there is a lot of Perl packages under Artistic 1.0 which seems an issue. So let create this License of Perl 5 and below saying: choose between Artistic 1.0 or GPL. And because you have this choice, everything is fine. I probably misread and because it is not Guix related, I would like to ask to GNU or FSF. Do you know where can I post an email? All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Tobias, Thank you for the clarification. On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:29, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道： > > zimoun 写道： > >> Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor > >> case > >> is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. > > > > No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( > > I should clarify: when the FSF calls the Artistic 1.0 licence > ‘vague’, that's not an aesthetic criticism. > > It means that the licence is broken and fails to do what it claims > to do: give you the licence (=freedom) to do something that would > not otherwise be allowed by copyright law. It means that you > can't prove, in court, that the licence says what you thought it > said. It's not merely ugly, it's defective and potentially > dangerous. I agree. It is what I tried to express in my other email. You explained here better than I did elsewhere. :-) > This always happens when programmers think they can write their > own licence. It starts with a punny name (‘artistic licence’, > ‘WTFPL’, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mess. I am on the same wavelength. All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道： zimoun 写道： Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( I should clarify: when the FSF calls the Artistic 1.0 licence ‘vague’, that's not an aesthetic criticism. It means that the licence is broken and fails to do what it claims to do: give you the licence (=freedom) to do something that would not otherwise be allowed by copyright law. It means that you can't prove, in court, that the licence says what you thought it said. It's not merely ugly, it's defective and potentially dangerous. This always happens when programmers think they can write their own licence. It starts with a punny name (‘artistic licence’, ‘WTFPL’, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mess. Kind regards, T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Tobias, Thank you for the explanations. I agree, almost. ;-) On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Thank you for fighting for this package in Guix. I hope upstream > sees the light and Clarifies things. The issue is that upstream has disappeared, as usual in scientific software. Someone writes a piece of code then publishes a paper and sometimes the requirement for publication is to be pushed in mainstream collection of packages (Bioconductor in this case). But the copyright holder does not maintain the code and instead write another piece of code, try to publish a paper, etc.. Well the Reproducibility of Science crisis. > zimoun 写道： > ‘Non-copyleft’ does not mean ‘non-free’. All packages in Guix > must be free. The Artistic 1.0 licence is *not free*.[0] It is not my point. Artistic 1.0 is free and non-copyleft when applied to Perl. And it does not make sense. A license is free or not, independently to what it is applied to. > I do understand your frustration & hacker instinct to ‘fix’ the > problem in some clever way, but that's not how licences work. The > Artistic 1.0 story really ends here. As I said, saying that Artistic 1.0 is non-free is really a flavour of taste. > I'm not trying to demotivate you. I just don't want you to waste > your time & effort in this dead-end direction. Bugging upstream > until they respond is the only solution. They will not, sadly. > > Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not > > appear > > me clearer; they are both doomed! > > I hope you'll understand that I'm also not trying to be rude when > I say (y)our personal opinions are entirely valid and absolutely > irrelevant :-) My point is: claiming that Clarified Artistic 1.0 is free and Artistic 1.0 is not is a flavour of taste. What does it mean "free"? Well, it is defined by some GNU documents. Then, someone reads this definition and sees if the license is compliant with the definition. And there is an interpretation. That's why GNU considers some license free and Debian not (or the contrary). Well, I disagree to say Clarified Artistic 1.0 is free and Artistic 1.0 is not. They are both free or both non-free. > The FSF's legal counsel has decided that the Clarified version > does in fact ‘correct the vagueness of of the Artistic License > 1.0’[2]. I understand. And I disagree. So I appeal. :-) > > Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor > > case is > > more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. > > No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( Yes it is. Because the main purpose of a license is to manage what happens in Court. Well, I understand you are defending the official GNU position. And currently Artisitic 1.0 will not be included in GNU Guix because currently GNU claims that Artistic 1.0 is non-free. I am fine with that. :-) And I understand you block my hacky proposal of non-copyleft. I am also fine with that. :-) So I will appeal to FSF/GNU. ;-) All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Ricardo, Thank you for the quick feedback. On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > zimoun writes: > > > The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do > > not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the > > inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. > > That wouldn’t be correct. non-copyleft is for free licenses only, and > the Artistic 1.0 does not qualify. The Perl License section says: << This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the GNU GPL—in other words, you can choose either of those two licenses. It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft. It is compatible with the GNU GPL because the GNU GPL is one of the alternatives. We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL. >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense I read "It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft." therefore it means non-copyleft. > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense says: > > “We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is > too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and > their meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except > as part of the disjunctive license of Perl.” > > However: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic > > “This license is a free software license, compatible with the > GPL. It is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the > vagueness of the Artistic License 1.0.” > I already know these statements. And I disagree. Currently, the license is considered free when applied to Perl but non-free otherwise. It does not make sense. Well, if I understand well, as GNU Guix maintainer, you will have the official GNU position, right? So let discuss this official GNU position. :-) Do you know in which mailing list can I post? Cheers, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Zimoun, Thank you for fighting for this package in Guix. I hope upstream sees the light and Clarifies things. zimoun 写道： Ricardo Wurmus wrote: It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic License instead. It’s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they really want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be no trouble for them to switch. This is the only solution. Any other licence in licenses.scm is fine too. The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. ‘Non-copyleft’ does not mean ‘non-free’. All packages in Guix must be free. The Artistic 1.0 licence is *not free*.[0] I do understand your frustration & hacker instinct to ‘fix’ the problem in some clever way, but that's not how licences work. The Artistic 1.0 story really ends here. I'm not trying to demotivate you. I just don't want you to waste your time & effort in this dead-end direction. Bugging upstream until they respond is the only solution. Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear me clearer; they are both doomed! I hope you'll understand that I'm also not trying to be rude when I say (y)our personal opinions are entirely valid and absolutely irrelevant :-) The FSF's legal counsel has decided that the Clarified version does in fact ‘correct the vagueness of of the Artistic License 1.0’[2]. Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( Especially when this very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft" [1]. …but that's not this very licence, it's a completely different one: the (disjunct) combination of the Artistic 1.0 licence *and the GPL*, i.e. ‘choose one’. The result is only free because you can *ignore* the Artistic 1.0 part. Kind regards, T G-R [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
zimoun writes: > The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do > not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the > inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. That wouldn’t be correct. non-copyleft is for free licenses only, and the Artistic 1.0 does not qualify. > Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear > me clearer; they are both doomed! > Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is > more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. Especially when this > very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may > not be a real copyleft" [1]. > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense says: “We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl.” However: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ClarifiedArtistic “This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the Artistic License 1.0.” -- Ricardo
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Ricardo, On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:47, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > >> That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. “licenses.scm” also > >> contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version > >> 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be > >> interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. > It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic License > instead. It’s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they really > want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be no trouble > for them to switch. I have no news from the flowPeak's maintainer and I think the package is still in Bioconductor 3.10 but without any recent updates. The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear me clearer; they are both doomed! Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. Especially when this very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft" [1]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
zimoun writes: > Hi Ricardo, > > Thank you for your quick feedback. > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> >> That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. “licenses.scm” also >> contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version >> 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be >> interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. > > Thank you for the explanations. > > I sent an email to the maintainer to ask them to "upgrade" the > license. Let see. :-) It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic License instead. It’s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they really want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be no trouble for them to switch. -- Ricardo
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
Hi Ricardo, Thank you for your quick feedback. On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. “licenses.scm” also > contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version > 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be > interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. Thank you for the explanations. I sent an email to the maintainer to ask them to "upgrade" the license. Let see. :-) Otherwise, I understand. All the best, simon
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?
zimoun writes: > I am packaging bunch of Flow Cytometry packages and `flowPeaks` says > Artistic 1.0 license. > See > https://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/manuals/flowPeaks/man/flowPeaks.pdf > > And in `license.scm` there is only the 2.0. That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. “licenses.scm” also contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. -- Ricardo
