Re: Licensing terms for data derived from ARB/SILVA data
On 29/11/14 15:03, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andreas,
> what aout putting barnap into main and barrnap-additional-data
> into non-free?
Do you mean having barrnap depend on or suggest barrnap-additional-data
in that case?
The problem is that the non-free HMMs are not really "additional", as
barrnap would not work without them at all. Hence it would not make
sense to install one without the other.
In theory, one could split the HMMs into a free and a non-free set, and
then patch barrnap to read its HMMs from multiple sources. The free HMMs
could then go into the barrnap package in main, and the non-free ones
into a separate data package in non-free.
However, if someone does not have non-free enabled, they will silently
miss all the results only available with the non-free HMM set. I can
imagine that would confuse the majority of users, who would want to rely
on the output of barrnap as it is.
> Greetings from Hanoi
> Andreas.
Thanks and enjoy your vacation :)
Sascha
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 01:14:20PM +0000, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
>> 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.sallou@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-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: [🔎] 5479C6AC.2080800@steinbiss.name">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 5479C6AC.2080800@steinbiss.name
>>
>>
>
Reply to: