Re: Please consider free license for segemehl
Hi again,
I have not yet received any response since three weeks. I wonder
whether I was using a proper address. It would be great if you could
comment on the license issue and I wonder whether the technical hints
I have given were helpful.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm writing you on behalf of the Debian Med team which is a group inside
> Debian with the objective to package free software in the field of
> medicine and biology for official Debian. We have assembled several
> known tools which you can see on our so called biology task page[1].
> Also Segemehl will show up on this page in the "Packaging has started
> and developers might try the packaging code in VCS" section after about
> 24 hours.
>
> Since I've got a request from my colleagues to install segemehl I also
> intend to package this for Debian. Unfortunately the licensing
> information at the website and inside the code is quite sparse. The
> only hint I've found is if I call the executables it prints:
>
> SEGEMEHL is free software for non-commercial use
> (C) 2008 Bioinformatik Leipzig
>
> >From a Debian point of view this is non-free since it puts a restriction
> on the usage of the software. I wonder whether you might consider some
> free license like GPL, BSD or similar.
>
> Since I had a look onto the source archive I'd like to give some
> additional hints:
>
> 1. The archive contains a file
> segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl/cscope.out
> which most probably is not intended to be distributed.
> 2. It would be also great if you could strip backup files
> (*~) from the source tarball.
> 3. There is an object file
> segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl/libs/remapping.o
> which also made it probably unintended into the tarball
>
> Finally it looks unusual that you are distributing all files under
> segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl instead of simply putting everything into just
> segemehl_0_2_0.
>
> If you are interested I could provide manpages for the three executables
> created by the default build process. These will be part of the Debian
> package (provided you will consider a free license and we can distribute
> the package inside Debian).
>
> As a hint for a naming convention: All three executables are ending
> with ".x" which is quite unusual. While it might be help against name
> space pollution specifically for such generic names as "lack" you might
> consider droping this extension in a next version.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> [1] https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: