Re: Please consider free license for segemehl
Hi,
my mail might have been lost over holidays. It would be nice to get at
least some response.
Thanks
Andreas.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 08:47:44AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: